Preamble

The House met at Twelve of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Llanelly Rural District Water Bill,

Read the third time, and passed.

Legal and General Life Assurance Society Bill [Lords],

Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

London County Council (General Powers)

Bill, Read the third time, and passed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

SIR SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D: Mr. Daniel Wilson; and had appointed in substitution (for the consideration of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Bill): Mr. Donald.

STANDING COMMITTEE E.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee E: Mr. Charles Edwards (added in respect of the Trade Disputes (No. 2) Bill); and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Trade Disputes (No. 2) Bill):Mr. Clement Edwards.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — DOGS' PROTECTION BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be now read the third time.

Sir WATSON CHEYNE: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to insert instead therof the words
this House declines to proceed further with a measure which would impose an unnecessary and vexatious obstacle to medical research.
I have not as yet spoken in this House on this Bill. On the last occasion I did not speak partly because it was not necessary and partly because the time was short, but chiefly because I did not approve of the Amendment proposed, and I could not have given it cordial support. I quite recognise the value of that Amendment as an alternative to the Bill itself, but the more I look at that Amendment the more I feel that it introduces a very great obstacle to research in these matters. It seems a very little thing to get an additional certificate, but I shall show that it really is not, and the very matter of getting this additional certificate is an obstacle which ought not to be introduced at the present time. From another point of view, I do not think that this Bill should be proceeded with, and that is because it involves a very grave censure upon a large body of honourable men and a great profession for which there is no justification whatever. I do not think this House realises what an amount of obloquy has already been thrown upon men who are only trying to do something which may be of great use to mankind and science. The Bill as it now stands practically states that this House has gone carefully into the matter of all these accusations, and it implies that cruelty is being practised, that the medical profession delight in torture, and that they cannot be trusted in the matter of animals.

Sir F. BAN BURY: That is not in the Bill.

Sir W. CHEYNE: I say that this is what it implies; and for these reasons it is alleged that it is necessary to tie the hands of medical men still further, even though such a proceeding may involve a
serious loss to humanity. I can speak on this matter from first-hand knowledge, because at one time I held certificates and licences for a number of years, and later on in my career I became one of those men who had the responsibility of signing certificates. My experience dates back a good while, and no doubt there are other circumstances which hampered investigations at that time which may not do so now. As far as I remember, my first licence was taken out in the year 1880 or 1881, and from that time onwards I held licences for twelve or fifteen years. Not that I used them every year, but I held licences till at last I found that I could not serve two masters, and I could not serve God and mammon. Now, with regard to the difficulties of the existing Bill as it stands. In the first place, you have to have a laboratory in which you can do your work, and that must be licensed. When I commenced studying bacteriology it was then absolutely in its infancy, and I was one of the pioneers of it in this country. At that time there was no laboratory in the Kingdom which attempted bacteriological work. I got into a physiological laboratory, and at first they were very sceptical about any of the experiments, and later on they began to attribute any illness they contracted to my compounds.
Then you say yon have got to get someone to sign your licence, and you depute two to sign it. At one time the practical surgeons and assistants did not think much of bacteria, and they thought it was very unlikely that they had anything to do with disease, and they did not really think it was worth while investigating that subject. On the other hand, there were those who were entirely opposed to Lord Lister's revolution in surgery, and would oppose it in every way they could. While I was able usually to get one signature, I often found it difficult to get the second, which I usually tried to get from the President of the College of Surgeons, and for some years he was an opponent of Lord Lister and all his works. These are real difficulties. Then when these certificates were got we had to go to the Home Office, and they used to lie there for some considerable time before they went through. Now we are proposing to have further restrictions and another certificate, which has to be got in order to show that no other animal in the world is possible except the dog to
experiment upon. It is difficult to get that certificate in the case of people who are very conscientious about this matter.
Then, similarly, you have not only to persuade the informed people, but you have also to persuade the Home Secretary, who, perhaps, knows very little about that department of science, that it is necessary. You are, therefore, adding a very great difficulty to many existing difficulties, and the result of those difficulties is to cause delay. As a rule, if you have just cause, you got your certificate, but the people who have the granting of them do not understand the value of time. Supposing that you are making a research, the experiment on the animal only forms a small part of it. There comes a time when you form certain views and have ascertained certain facts, and you want to test them. You have to get these certificates before you can do anything more. You have to lay aside your researches, the enthusiasm and inspiration which is guiding you goes, and when you get your certificate you have almost forgotten what you wanted to do. You have, perhaps, started another research and have got more interested in it. You thus have a vicious circle, and you lose that impulse which is so excessively important.
This Bill is going to make it still more difficult to be ready to do the experiments at the time that your thoughts are running in that direction. Put a man in a responsible position and he will try to fulfil the duties of that position fairly and honestly. However wild a man may be ordinarily, if you put him in a position of responsibility he will live up to that responsibility. Anyone placed in the position of having to decide "whether a man ought to undertake research or whether he was fit to do it or whetherthe research was worth doing—those are the two things to be considered—would try fairly and honestly to decide the matter. I do not pretend to be a bit better than anybody else, but I do say that when I have been asked to sign a certificate I have gone into the matter carefully. I have known the danger of delay, and I have tried to make the decision the same day. I have more than once refused certificates, either because I thought the research was not a good one, but was a foolish one or not well thought out, or because I thought the man had not sufficient preliminary education to take upon himself such an important work. I believe that feeling would inspire anyone put into that position. Any re-
sponsibility put upon a man of honour will be fully discharged, and the suggestion of the Anti-Vivisection Society that that duty is not satisfactorily discharged is disgraceful.
There is a great deal of exaggeration. People do not understand what an experiment upon an animal means. Only the other day a lady whom I had not met before came to me, and, when she heard that I was opposed to this Bill, she expressed great disgust and astonishment that I should oppose such humanitarian ideas, and that I should advocate such a terrible thing as vivisection. I tried to get to know what her idea of experiments upon animals was. She told me that vivisectionists had cellars at the bottom of their houses where they kept the animals so that their cries could not be heard and that when the house was quiet they went down to those cellars to see the results of their experiments. The public as a whole think that you experiment upon animals to see what happens. That is not the spirit in which experiments are conducted. You have been thinking over the matter and collecting information from all sides. You have been working up researches, whether anatomical or chemical, and the time comes when it seems advisable to put the ideas which you have formed to the test. Dealing with living issues, you must either test them on manor beast. Let me take an example. Soon after bacteriology began to be studied, Koch demonstrated the presence of the bacilli of tuberculosis, and that was followed by the discovery of the fact that cattle were extremely subject to tuberculosis. As a result specimens of milk were examined and found to be tuberculosis. Going further and studying the disease in infants, it was found that the most common place for tuberculosis to occur in infants was the intestines. The natural conclusion was that you had better kill the bacilli in the milk, and the only way was by boiling the milk. For years children in hospitals and in private life have been given boiled milk; my own children were given boiled milk. A very curious thing resulted. I remember quite well years ago a physician in the children's hospital with which I was connected saying to me, "I am not quite sure about the boiling of milk. It looks to me as if you take the life out of it." I was more interested in the tubercular bacillus than anything else,
and I cannot say that it impressed me very much. That idea, however, has existed, and experiments have been made in the nutritive values of food, with the result that it has been found that the boiling of milk does take the life out of it.

Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that this Bill deals with dogs. It does not deal with boiled milk, cattle, or anything else.

Sir W. CHEYNE: I quite appreciate your objection. I was only trying to show by a very simple illustration what an experiment means. I wanted to show that experiments on animals were the continuation of research, and that they were not merely carried on in order to see what might happen. It is a very important point. The main object of research is to get at the actual functions of various parts of the body, It is not a haphazard thing; it is carefully thought out and applied to one particular purpose. As I shall be unable to speak again on this Motion, I have tried to realise the principal objections which my adversaries may bring forward, and I think I can see three kinds of objections gathered from what I have read in the anti-vivisection papers. The first is that it is all nonsense to talk of the trouble arising through introducing extra limitations. It is suggested, indeed, that experiments on dogs are quite unnecessary, and opponents of these experiments assert that it is possible that all the knowledge required can be obtained by observations of patients and by post-mortem examinations. The second point is that experiments on dogs should be prevented entirely; and the third is that a great deal of work is done on dogs without any practical aim: that it is one thing to make experiments with a practical aim, but that it is another thing to do it simply to see what may happen under given conditions. I will endeavour to develop those points.
Take the suggestion that it is unnecessary to have any experiments on dogs, because if there is anything of value to be learned it can be obtained by observations on patients and by post-mortem examinations. That is one of the stock arguments of the anti-vivisectionist. But I would like to suggest an illustration. Take gassing. That is a matter in which experiments have been made on dogs. We all remember the terrible descriptions which
were published of what happened when the Germans first used gas—how the men first began to cough, and then had to struggle for breath. Personally, I was very much alarmed, for it seemed to me that if the enemy had gas enough they could easily destroy whole armies. How were we to deal with that? Were we to sit and wait, were we to watch gassed men and wait for a post-mortem examination. Suppose that had been done. Suppose experiments on dogs had not been made. What course would have been taken. The chemists would have been set to work first to find out what the gas was; secondly, to discover the antidote, and then to provide proper masks. The results of the examination and the experimental masks would have had to be sent out to the troops, and much valuable time would have been wasted, and many lives lost. But what was done was to make certain experiments on animals—dogs and goats, and we all know that as a result of those experiments complete protection was quickly found against the gas. It is perfectly monstrous to suggest you could get a result like that by watching patients and making post-mortem examinations. The whole history of medicine is full of instances of prolonged observation of patients and of post-mortem examinations without ever arriving at results. Yet results have been achieved almost at once by experiments on animals. I do not know if I may mention some discoveries, but take the circulation of the blood. Experiments in connection with that were made on dogs and other animals. I suppose since the world began people have been wondering how the blood was distributed through the body. Before the days of Galen, who was the greatest physician on earth before the coming of Christ, extraordinary view were held as to the functions of the arteries and veins. When an animal dies what happens is that the arteries contract and empty themselves of blood. The conclusion before Galen's days was that the arteries contained air and the veins blood. But Galen laid it down that blood was contained in the arteries as well as in the veins.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is a very interesting lecture, but we are dealing with the Bill, and if the hon. Gentleman will look at the Bill he will see that there is nothing in it which prevents any of the experiments to which he is referring so long as a certificate is taken out. That is the
whole point, whether or not a certificate shall be taken out, and it is a very small point.

Sir W. CHEYNE: It is a small point, but I want to suggest that a great many experiments would have been prevented by reason of the delay involved in getting these certificates. This is a very intricate question. I am a new Member of the House, and it is somewhat difficult to keep within the rules of order in a case like this, but I am sure Mr. Speaker is perfectly fair. All I was trying to do, however, was to point out that delay might make many experiments impossible. If that is wrong, I am afraid I must leave out all I was going to say.

Mr. SPEAKER: That was not wrong at all. If the hon. Member confines himself to urging that there will be delay in obtaining certificates, of course that is strictly relevant. But to show the advantage of experiments upon animals in assisting human nature is irrelevant, because there is nothing here to prevent the experiments except the necessity of obtaining certificates.

Sir W. CHEYNE: I was going to say about Harvey that I did not mean for one moment that he would not have been able to do the experiments if these certificates had existed. However, I will leave that. I have no right to say that an experiment was stopped. I only say that experiments would have been stopped if these obstacles had existed. I will pass from the question of experiments on animals as being proved of value to the seriousness of these restrictions. If: it is in order, I should like to deal with the second objection, namely, that this Bill is a reflection on the workers. In any remarks I may be allowed to make I do not wish to reflect on anyone in this House. I do not question the honesty and the humanity of anyone who is promoting this Bill. I take the position that they are misinformed. That is not their fault. It is the fault of people who inform them. I speak as one who knows that the statements made to them appealed to their humanity and, believing the statements made to them, they come here and promote this Bill. If it is in order, I would point out that some of the statements made to them are not true. The statements made to them are made by agitators, and we know what the agitator is. Ho only sees one side of the question, and disregards all other sides as being abso-
lutely irrelevant, and he uses his persuasive power to convert others. This agitation is founded on misrepresentation. There is a good deal of statement of partial truths and a suppression of truth. If it is in order, I would like to show how these statements are manufactured. I have two about myself in connection with this Bill. Here is one that has been circulated. They did not send me a copy, but it has been circulated to all Members, containing statements about myself. It says,
Dr. Watson Cheyne, who opposed the Bill, speaking in the Committee stage, declared that experiments on dogs were necessary for the cure of cancer.
I never said a word about it. It was mentioned upstairs in the Committee Room, but not by me—
He warned the Members of the Standing Committee that if the Bill were passed in its original form it might be the cause of the death of many who would otherwise have lived.
I never said anything of the sort. It is true I am a member of the Imperial Cancer Fund and am familiar with all the work that has been done. I could have gone on till five o'clock telling you of remarkable things of value. I did not mean to prophesy about cancer, and I did not do it. But after this statement it will come up ever afterwards that I prophesied that very valuable research would be obtained. Here is another somewhat worse thing:
Sir Watson Cheyne, Sir William Whitla, Dr. Macdonald, and Lieut.-Colonel Raw showed themselves almost passionately anxious —
—this is in regard to the Bill promoted by the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel W. Guinness) in regard to the use of anaesthetics in veterinary surgery—
showed themselves almost passionately anxious to save the dog every twinge of pain likely to be suffered at the hands of the veterinary surgeon. Sir Watson Cheyne was inclined to object to morphia as an anaesthetic being employed, although we are quite sure he would retain the use of it in vivisection.
Why should they say that? I have never claimed the right to do so in vivisection. I have never given the slightest ground for their making such a suggestion. But what will happen? Six months hence an old lady will come and tell you that I use morphia for experiments on animals. So the lie will spread, and hon. Gentlemen will come here and argue, if I happen to be a Member of the House six months hence, that I said so. There is another important thing I should like to mention as an instance of misrepresentation. Here are some remarks by Mr. Stephen Cole-
ridge on rabies, dealing with the case of a man who was bitten by a mad fox. The result of statements like that would be that people would be prevented from going for treatment if they were bitten.

Mr. SPEAKER: Really, what has this to do with the Bill before the House? Absolutely nothing. This Bill, as I have said, is a simple Bill. I believe that practically the whole of the first Clause was proposed by the Government. It is really a Government Bill introduced as an Amendment to the other Bill. It is very narrow in its limits, and all these other matters, such as replies to Mr. Stephen Coleridge, and so on, have nothing whatever to do with this Bill. The hon. Member is not entitled to waste the time of the House in discussing them.

Sir H. CRAIK: May I ask whether, in the first place, it is a fact that the Government is now opposing this Bill, and does not think that the Amendment introduced makes it any more represent the views of the Government? Nor does it represent the views of that very large body who consider it from beginning to end a mischievous and pernicious Bill. Surely we are entitled to bring forward arguments proving generally the pernicious character of the Bill and the harm that it would do by preventing experiments "which have rendered great benefits to humanity. That being the case, how is it possible for us to carry on an effective opposition unless our scientific friends are allowed to bring forward strong and convincing arguments to show that a restriction upon these experiments would lead to very great detriment and loss to humanity?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will confine himself to a matter of that sort by all means. It is strictly relevant. But he was dealing with all sorts of questions—attacks upon himself for what he said in connection with a totally different Bill—not even this Bill—and replies to statements which have appeared in the Press over the name of Mr. Stephen Coleridge and the case of a Peer who was bitten by a fox, I believe, five and twenty years ago. What on earth have these things to do with a simple Bill of this kind? The hon. Gentleman asks me whether this is a Government Bill or not. I do not know. All I remember about it is that the greater part of Clause 1 was introduced by the Government. I do not mean that it is a Bill promoted by the
Government, but what I say—and my recollection, I think, is correct upon that —is that the greater part of Clause 1 is in the wording of Amendments by the Government.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that the Government is now opposing the Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know. I cannot get a chance of hearing them.

Sir W. CHEYNE: it is a very curious thing that we have been passing two Bills, a Scotch and an English Bill, on health, and we are engaged in considering a Housing Bill, and at the same time we are considering the possibility of putting greater and greater restrictions on what is at the basis of the success of those Bills, namely, the advancement of knowledge. We are proposing to improve health, and I am afraid we are allowing the public to believe that health is to be improved much more rapidly than it is by these Bills, and at the same time we are proposing to disarm the profession which has to deal with health matters by preventing proper research. Surely the sensible thing to do would have been to begin by sweeping away all restrictions instead of imposing fresh restrictions. You may say I am an enthusiast in the matter. Perhaps I am, but we want to raise our standard of health from C 3 to A 1, and if anything stands in the way, whether it is this Bill or the Bill on which it is founded, it should be swept away, and if that is done I believe you will attain your aim. If it is not done, what will happen is what happened before, that the supreme authority on matters of health will again be Germany, because Germany from the first has acted in an enlightened manner. It has put on no restrictions, it has encouraged research on every hand, and I believe as soon as they get over the disappointment of losing the War, and see that they will get nothing more out of the Allies, they will set to work and will again take the supreme position they occupied before. Then it is a case of our doing as we did before, going to Germany to find out what has been found out in regard to these matters instead of doing it for ourserves.

Sir P. MAGNUS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I cannot speak with the first hand knowledge which my hon. Friend possesses. My knowledge of the subject is distinctly second-hand, and that is, perhaps, a very
good reason why I should second this Amendment. It expresses very clearly the object that we have in view in moving the rejection of the Bill. It is because it will impose an unnecessary and vexatious obstacle to medical research. The issue before the House is very limited. Let me look first of all at the title of the Bill. It is "To impose further restrictions on the vivisection of dogs." I take it by vivisection of dogs is intended experiments on dogs for the purpose of research with a view to the prevention and cure of disease. Therefore, the Bill proposes to impose further restrictions on a measure of that great and fundamental importance to the health of this country. But there is a great deal more even in the title because it implies that these restrictions are necessary in consequence of the cruelty that has hitherto been inflicted upon dogs by the distinguished medical men who perform these experiments. Therefore, if it were for no other reason than preventing any censure which is implied in the very title of the Bill from being indicated with respect to these distinguished scientific men, I should say that reason alone would be amply sufficient for rejecting the Bill. But there are other reasons strictly within the title of the Bill which seem to me to make it desirable.
I believe that if this Bill be passed in the form in which it now stands, the large number of relatively ignorant people who subscribe to the anti-vivisection funds will go about saying that the Bill has been passed in the House of Commons for the further restriction of experiments on animals, and that, although it is true that the Bill has been passed with slight amendments, nevertheless a Bill has been passed saying that experiments on animals are cruel and inhuman. That would produce a very bad effect. It would do more. Unless this Bill is rejected, these friends of anti-vivisection will say that they have gained something by the passing of this Bill, and the large sums of money which are absolutely wasted in the propaganda against vivisection will continue to be wasted and the sums of money contributed by sympathetic and benevolent old ladies of both sexes, which might be expended on founding research laboratories will be expended in the huge advertisements which meet one wherever one goes in support of objects which are not only useless but detrimental to the pur-
poses of medical research. I think there is nothing to be done but to reject this Bill in toto, and to prevent these people saying that a Bill of this kind has passed through Parliament. By the rejection of this Bill, Parliament will have shown its appreciation of the efforts that have been made by scientific men through these researches to prevent and cure diseases, and it will be an argument in favour of research generally—research in science, in literature, in economics, in history, and other subjects. May I, as one interested in education generally, without any special knowledge of the particular branch of education to which this Bill refers, say how important it is to the interests of education at the present time in the country that everything possible should be done in favour of research work?
1.0 p.m.
The Bill itself seems to be very inconclusive and contradictory. My eminent Friend (Sir Watson Cheyne) has pointed out that many surgical operations arc in themselves experiments. Surgical operations on human beings are sometimes experiments. Might it not be, possible, with that love for dogs which some of us feel, that some eminent surgeon might desire to perform an experiment on a dog which would relieve it of great pain and possibly enable it to continue to live. How could that experiment be effected under this Bill? The first Clause of the Bill says
Notwithstanding anything in the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, it shall be unlawful except as hereinafter provided to perform any experiment of a nature calculated to give pain or disease to any dog.
Such an experiment might be intended to cure the dog of a disease, and it may be absolutely necessary to carry out the operation almost immediately; but under this Bill that could not be done until the surgeon had obtained a special certificate from the Home Office. The Bill has been so drafted, and the Amendment introduced on the Report stage has been so worded, that it seems to contradict the first Clause of the Bill. Therefore, the Bill would have to be referred back if it were passed. My hon. Friend has pointed out that very great difficulties might stand in the way of obtaining a certificate, and that an eminent scientific man who is desirous of performing an experiment of the result of which he was not certain would hesitate if he had to go through the form of approaching the Home Office and explaining
that the experiment could not possibly be performed upon any other animal than a dog. The words of the Clause are:
and that no other animal is available for such an experiment.
Surely that is a very wide and sweeping thing for any scientific man to have to say. He would have to affirm on his own conscience, with the possibility of being punished if he were wrong, that this particular experiment could not possibly be performed on any other animal and that no other animal was available. If that is his first difficulty, what would be his difficulty in endeavouring to give the scientific reasons why this experiment could not be performed upon any other animal when explaining it to a Home Secretary who knew nothing about science, or certainly knew nothing of science in its application to surgery. I think I have given sufficient reasons why this Bill should not be added to the Statute Book by a Vote of this House.

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill seems to have forgotten that there has been a great change in the Bill since it passed its Second Reading. His speech would have been more relevant if the Bill had come for Third Reading in the same state as when it passed its Second Reading. All that the Bill does now is to say that a certificate must be given in the event of a dog being used for certain experiments. The hon. Baronet said one of the reasons why he thought this House should not assent to the Third Reading of the Bill was because it implied a censure upon an honourable profession. If that is a reason for not passing a Bill to prevent painful experiments on dogs, it would have been a reason why the Act of 1876 should not have been passed. That Act prevented, for certain reasons, experiments being performed upon all animals, and provided that certificates would have to be obtained. Therefore, that argument of the hon. Baronet has no weight whatever. The next argument was that the supporters of the Bill only knew second-hand the statements which were made. I do not know whether he was referring to me, because this is the third Bill which I have introduced. The statements I have made have not been made second-hand; they have been obtained from statements made before the Royal Commission. On the Report stage I gave instances from the Royal Commission, and, as the hon.
Baronet seems to have forgotten them, and as I think the House ought to be reminded of them, I will read one or two of them. Here is what Mr. Pembrey said in his evidence in the fourth Report of the Royal Commission, question 14067, page 763:
I wanted to mention it in order to show the necessity of painful experiments.
That is not a second-hand statement; that is a statement by a gentleman who is himself an operator—
I think that painful experiments are necessary.
Then I again read from the speech of Dr. Wilson, M.A., M.D., LL.D., in which he says,
I have not allied myself to the anti-vivisectionists, but I accuse my profession of misleading the public—

Sir P. MAGNUS: Shame!

Sir F. BANBURY: Why shame?

Sir P. MAGNUS: To accuse his profession.

Sir F. BANBURY: Why not? If his profession does wrong, why not say so?—
misleading the public as to the cruelties and horrors which are perpetrated on animal life. When it is stated that the actual pain involved is of the most trifling description, there is a suppressio veri of the most palpable kind.
Then I read a letter from Sir William Collins, who is a well known medical gentleman, and was formerly a Member of this House, who wrote me:
Allow me to congratulate you on the success which has so far attended your Dogs' Bill.
One of the arguments advanced in favour of the Amendment of the Home Secretary —because it was a Government Amendment, and the Bill has become a Government Bill—was that the Government wanted to make the Bill in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The hon. and gallant Member for the Lanark Division (Captain Elliot), in an interruption, said,
On a point of Order. May I read what is printed in red ink on the certificate, and which specifically states, 'Experiments are not to be performed under this certificate until licensee has been informed that it has not been disallowed by the Secretary of State'? That seems to be an absolute protection.
All this Bill at the present moment does is to say that a certificate must be required. The Research Defence Society have issued a memorandum to the Home Secretary dated June, 1919, in which they say,
We desire to express to you our hope that the Dogs' Protection Bill will not be allowed to be read a third time. We recognise the value of the Government Amendment of 23rd May.
My right hon. Friend (Sir H. Craik) was right in his point of Order when he said it is now a Government Bill. His own friends in the circular which they write to the Home Secretary say,
We recognise the value of the Government Amendment.
Then they go on to say, giving the reasons against the Third Reading of the Bill:
If the Bill were passed, the opponents of all experiments on animals would feel that something had been gained, and would immediately claim support for Mr. Cathcart Wason's Bill to prevent experiment on any dog, cat, horse, mule, ass or monkey.
Mr. Cathcart Wason's Bill is not my Bill. It was a private Member's Bill and every Member of this House knows perfectly well that such a Bill has not the ghost of a chance of passing. Whatever happens to this Bill will not affect by one iota the chance of the Bill to which I have alluded. Now I may refer to a short extract from the "Lancet." The Bill was founded and brought in in order to prevent experiments on dogs which we state are unnecessary because other animals can be secured and dogs are in such a peculiar position with regard to man that they should not be used for these matters. This is from the "Lancet" of the 31st May, 1919:
The memorandum of the Medical Research Committee, which we also print in substance this week, demonstrates without reasonable protext for gainsaying that the experimental use of dogs has advanced our knowledge, and has been of benefit to suffering humanity. This is not to say that such knowledge could be acquired in no other way.
That is not a hearsay statement made by old ladies, unless the editor of the "Lancet" is an old lady. I do not know whether he is or is not. That is an argument made by the "Lancet," a representative journal of the Medical Society no later than the 31st May of this year—
The habit of mind engendered by the pursuit of medical research is not dogmatic. A further indisputable if regrettable point is that the dog by virtue of his long domestication has specially fitted himself as a test object.
That is the secret of it. The dog is cheap.

Sir P. MAGNUS: No.

Sir F. BANBURY: What about Dr. Chapple?

Sir P. MAGNUS: Read what Dr. Chapple said.

Sir F. BANBURY: He is a member of the medical profession.

Sir P. MAGNUS: That was not a fair quotation from Dr. Chappie's speech. If the speech is read I think I can prove that that was the case.

Sir F. BANBURY: I have the speech here—
Even if we examine this question of cheapness we find that the difference is not between 5s. and 7s. 6d., but between 5s. and £5. It is not a matter of saving a few shillings; it is a matter of getting animals for experiments at a price that can be paid as compared with the price that cannot be paid. It would cost £5 to get a suitable monkey."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1914, col. 524, Vol. 61.]

Sir P. MAGNUS: That is only one of many reasons. Dr. Chapple pointed out that dogs were the only animals available for many experiments.

Sir F. BANBURY: I said it was one of the reasons. I have just given another, namely, that a dog by virtue of his long domestication has specially fitted himself as a test object. In a Memorandum the Research Committee referred to
The well-known general reasons which render dogs invaluable for certain experimental work—namely, their long domestication, their size and structure of body, which cause the study of diet and of excreta to be applicable alike to dog, man and child.
I say that is the most contemptible reason that could be advanced. [Hon. Members: "No, no."] Oh, yes. Your reason is this: that because a dog has trust in man he does not fear and does not think that man is going to injure or hurt him; he therefore does not struggle and allows himself to be operated on, whereas if you took a monkey you would have great difficulty in carrying out many of your experiments.

Captain ELLIOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does not the quotation say that the dog eats and excretes certain things, because it has been accustomed to live alongside man. Surely it is not a contemptible argument to say that a dog has been accustomed to eat certain things because it lives with us?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Sir F. BANBURY: Now I come to the position of the Government in this matter. First let me state that all these certificates and all the negotiations with regard to thy Vivisection Act of 1876 and various
Bills which I have brought in dealing with dogs have always been conducted by the Home Office, and on 23rd May the Undersecretary of State for the Home Office recommended his Amendment on the ground that it carried out the recommendation of the majority of the Royal Commission, and this is the recommendation that he quoted:
In view of the variety of practice and the divergence of opinion as to the necessity of employing dogs for experimentation and demonstration, we find some difficulty in deciding upon this important question. Some of us regard the provisions of the existing law as sufficient, some of us would prefer that in the case both of experimentation and demonstration the further special protection given to horses, asses and mules should be extended to dogs, while some of us would exclude the use of dogs altogether. But if any alteration is made in the existing procedure, the majority of us would agree that the special enactments now applicable to horses, asses and mules might be extended to dogs, and also to cats and anthropoid apes.
That is what the Bill in its present form does. This is what the hon. Baronet the Under-Secretary for Home Affairs went on to say:
Every recommendation in that Report, except the one in the Amendment which now stands, in my name, has already been adopted by the Home Office, including, among the other things, the establishment of the Advisory Committee. We now want the House of Commons to assist us, by voting for this Amendment, to adopt the remaining recommendations of the Royal Commission that sat upon this question, and I think that that is an additional reason why this House, composed as we are of men with and without scientific attainment, should take the conclusion of the Royal Commission as the basis for their vote, rather than the view they may gather from ordinary literature, or from their deep feelings in reference to dogs, being experimented on at all.
He further said:
I want also to say that we have on the side of the Home Office and the Government in this Amendment the vast majority of the scientific and medical profession.
The Government carried that Amendment, having stated through the Member then in charge of the Bill, who is now absent, that the Amendment was brought forward and fathered by the Government in order to carry out the last recommendation of the Royal Commission. Now we have the Government coming down with another Office and another Minister, sending out a three-line Whip in order to cancel and render nugatory the Amendment which they themselves put into the Bill a short time ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right, too !"] I say it is a breach of faith, not with me,
but with the House. [HON. MEMBERS: ''No, no; nonsense!"]J It is no use saying "nonsense," which does not prove anything. I say it is a breach of faith, not with me, but with the House. The House was asked on the Report stage, by the Minister, in the words I have read out, to assist him and the Government in doing certain things, and the House did them; and then, when the House has done them, another Minister comes down and wishes that the House should reserve the decision which, by the request of the Government, they had arrived at only a short time ago. The arguments that have been put forward in favour of the Amendment are merely special pleading arguments, dealing for the greater part with the Bill not as it is now but as it was when it was introduced. The serious part, to my mind, is that the Government should do a thing of this sort—that having asked the House to take certain action quite recently, it should come down with a three-line Whip on a Friday—a most unusual thing—and ask them to over-ride a decision already reached.

Sir H. CRAIK: I shall speak only a few words, and I begin by saying that I fully recognise the strong feeling, the honesty and sincerity of feeling, which inspires those who promote this Bill. It is not for me to go into the scientific question. There is no danger that I shall err against any ruling of yours, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Banbury) objected to being told that he and I alike must depend on others for second-hand scientific knowledge. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to me to put himself above scientific opinion, and to declare that in the opinions he held in regard to the use of these experiments he was not speaking second-hand. The right hon. Baronet claimed to hold his opinion as to the scientific value of the arguments not second-hand, as I and most laymen in this House do, but first hand.

Sir F. BANBURY: When I said I did not hold the opinions second-hand I meant that they were not repeated to me by some person without knowledge.

Sir H. CRAIK: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of a small minority of the medical profession. He said that the most serious part of the question was what he described as a breach of faith on the part of the Government. When the Bill was before the House on Report the Government introduced and supported an Amend-
ment to lessen the pernicious character of the Bill. Is it in any way inconsistent that they should now, when there is for the first time a chance of throwing out the Bill, take that line. My right hon. Friend knows that the Bill slipped through the Second Beading almost silently. I was myself on the occasion of the Second Reading unable to be present, as I had to attend a Royal Commission.

Sir F. BANBURY: I saw the hon. Gentleman in the House on the morning of the day on which the Bill was read a second time.

Sir H. CRAIK: Yes, but I had to go away and could not possibly get back until half-past four. Is it inconsistent that the Government, having attempted to modify the hurtfulness of this Bill, should now come down and say that the whole Bill is wrong and oppose it. There is no inconsistency whatever in that attitude. Let me refer to the broad lines of this question as there is no use in splitting hairs on the Third Reading. We know what the position is. Some of us think that these experiments are justified and others think that they are not. Those in favour of them are prepared to oppose this Bill in any form, even amended. Those who quite sincerely think that these experiments are not justified support the Bill on the ground first that you have no right to use animals for the advantage of human beings. How far is that to be carried? Have we any right, for instance, to dispossess wild animals from the tracts in which they live? What about the treatment to which we subject horses in order to render them useful for our service? What right have we to destroy the rat or to exterminate whole races of animals? We know that those animals are hurtful to human beings and that their destruction is something that is expedient in the interests of human beings. If an hon. Member had a sick child of his own or in the case of anyone else would he not ride a horse to death in order to secure medical aid?

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: The horse enjoys being ridden.

Sir H. CRAIK: Would he not ride a horse to death to get medical aid, and if he would do that does he not see that if it is permissible, it becomes an absolute duty, and that if justified morally, it becomes our bounden duty to sacrifice an animal's life in the interests of human life?
Next there is the point that there is some peculiar sanctity about the dog. I have complete sympathy with the view that is taken as to the love of the dog. I have had dogs myself and found them good friends, and most of us have this love of dogs, but do not let us exaggerate it. It is a feeling which is not universal among humanity. Vast masses of humanity look down upon dogs, and our Eastern fellow subjects look on the dog as an unclean animal beyond all others. The dog is not always or at all times a great object of sanctity. Let me remind the House that we do not love the cynic, and the cynic means simply a man with a dog-like mind. Besides that there is an enormous amount of the love of dogs which is merely a form of selfishness. I have no patience at all with that love of dogs which shows itself in the case of the lap dog carried about in carriages and clothed in sumptuous raiment. There is an enormous deal of selfishness and cruelty mixed together in this love of dogs —

Mr.SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet himself laid down very strict rules as to what is relevant and what is not relevant on this Bill, and I must ask him to abide by those rules himself. He is speaking generally about the relation of the dog to the human being, and that is not really very relevant to this Bill. That question is not relevant to the question as to whether a certificate is or is not to be issued in respect of experiments on dogs. That is a small point, and I must ask the hon. Baronet to keep to it.

Sir H. CRAIK: This Bill is not confined merely to that. According to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, dogs are peculiarly closely connected with human beings, and therefore this Bill attempts to secure special exemption for dogs, to which we are opposed. While I do not wish to contest your ruling, Sir, is it not relevant to show that this argument of the peculiar sanctity of dogs and their close connection with humanity is not a sound basis for a Bill of this sort? The right hon. Baronet himself quoted an argument from the "Lancet" that the dog was specially useful because of its dietary, and he transformed the argument of the "Lancet" by saying that because the dog trusted us so it was a miserable and disgraceful thing for the "Lancet" to base such an argument upon it. I am endeavouring to show that the argument of the "Lancet" was sound and just, and
that, on the other hand, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, that the dog was so closely connected with us that it must be raised into a totally different position from all other animals, must not be carried too far. I have in my hand a letter from Dr. John Brown, the author of "Rab and His Friends," the greatest lover and historian of dogs that ever lived. That letter is strongly advocating vivisection, and he uses words which I wish I could ask the right hon. Gentleman and some of his friends to take to heart. He says:
I am not an anti-vivisectionist-—

Sir F. BANBURY: Neither am I.

Sir H, CRAIK: He goes on to say:
I wish you and the public and all good people would have a little more faith in their fellow creatures and not think them brutes and demons.
The right hon. Gentleman quoted the well-known epitaph of Byron upon his dog. Byron was a great poet. He was also a very great master of sarcasm, and there is a good deal more sarcasm against his fellow beings than even love for his dog friends in that epitaph. We are divided on the broad point, and I pass over all details and ask, Are we bound by any duty to animals, or by any special and sacred duty to one particular species of animals, to do anything whatever that would check the advance of science that may be, and certainly has been in the past, for the advantage of all humanity; and are we to check these researches which have done in the past, and will do in the future, so much good, merely because of what I think often is a sentiment and not a very reasonable feeling on the part of those who accuse their fellow beings of being brutes and demons?

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I desire at the out set to associate myself very strongly with the protest of the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of this Bill against what he very mildly describes as a breach of faith on the part of the Government towards the House. Whatever be the merits of this measure, there is no person in this House to-day, including the learned and enthusiastic Gentlemen opposite, who will deny my statement that when the Report stage of this measure concluded every Member of this House was entitled to go away with the impression of the assurance from the Under-Secretary of the Home Office that by the introduction of this
Government Amendment they had adopted the Bill. I have been told that Parliamentary bargains arc sacred things. I have been told that a bargain made behind your Chair, Sir, is sacred. Then what shall we say of a bargain made from the Treasury Bench in the face of the whole House? It ought to be absolutely sacrosanct, and I do not quite understand why it is that the new Minister of Health, who has been shouldered with the burden of this Bill all of a sudden, is placed in the embarrassing position of making almost his first official act in his new capacity that of throwing over the other Members of the Government. One is almost tempted to repeat the question asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Duncairn Division of Belfast (Sir E. Carson) the other day: Will the Government never make up its mind about anything? At any rate, there has been an absolute change of front, and one which I venture to say without any qualification constitutes as complete a breach of faith with the House as you will find in all the annals of Parliament. I am going to base the very few remarks that I wish to trouble the House with strictly upon the terms of the only operative Clause of the Bill, which is that in future experiments or vivisection upon dogs must not be carried out without an additional certificate, which we are all familiar with, and which is to the effect that the object of the experiment would necessarily be frustrated unless it is performed on a dog, and then, with that redundancy which always characterises Government Amendments, it adds the proviso that no other animal is available for such experiment. Obviously, the one would include the other. I do not want to travel outside that limitation, but we are confronted with this position, that because this Bill requires that certificate we are seriously warned by members of the medical profession present that that would in some mysterious way inflict enormous injury on medical science and research, and also, I gather, deprive humanity of many advantages, to which, according to the ethics of hon. Gentlemen opposite, we are entitled to help ourselves at the expense of the dumb creation—a dictum to which I do not subscribe. I have not that reverential respect for the mere ipse dixit of medical men, however eminent, which I suppose we all ought to entertain. The medical profession, like most other scientists, is one of the most gullible things in
the world. The distinguished Member who moved the rejection of the Bill confessed that from 130 years before Christ, down to the time of Harvey, the medical profession did not know anything about the circulation of the blood, and that they thought the arteries were air-passages.

Lieut.-Colonel RAW: That is the meaning of the word "arteries."

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: The function, at any rate, of the arteries is to carry the pure blood through the body. I would explain it fully to my hon. Friend, but it might be out of order. But to tell me that a profession which, from 130 B.C. down to the time of Harvey, a hundred and odd years ago, thought the arteries were air passages, is only in keeping with many other instances in which the scientific world has been wrong. Was it not Charles II. who called the Royal Society together and gave a dinner, and asked them why, if they put half a dozen goldfish in a bowl of water, none of the water ran over? Each of the learned party gave an opinion, when someone suggested that they should send for some goldfish and see what happened. This was done, and it was found that the water ran over. Galileo held the opinion that the earth revolved round the sun. I am not unduly impressed by the fact that the medical gentlemen simply tell us, because they have cut up animals and people, and we have not, that we know nothing about this question. I do not want to be tempted into a dissertation about the dog, but I do venture to say this. I remember when the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill was before this House one Member was asked why he did not vote. He said, "The fact is, my dear chap, my wife has a sister." Leaving the humorous, I support this Bill for the simple reason that I have a dog. That is quite sufficient for me. But, so far as the arguments which were specifically addressed to me are concerned, as to whether I would ride a horse to death to save the life of my daughter or anybody else's daughter, I do not think that would be a very effective way of saving life, because I do not know how I should reach the doctor's house if the horse dropped down dead, and I might not be able to see the doctor.
But all these questions are questions of degree. Riding a horse to the utmost of its capacity, caging a wild beast, killing a rat—some may be matters of absolute
necessity, some may be matters involving no very great pain or suffering. The whole essence which the certificate and the Bill aim at is this: You shall not inflict suffering, essential and indispensable to vivisection upon dogs, without special permission. The Under-Secretary welcomed the recommendation of the Royal Commission and told us it had the entire support of the Home Office and the Government. The whole Government and the Home Office were unanimous in accepting this in the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] They certainly did not oppose the Bill, and I was rather surprised myself that the right hon. Gentleman did not snap the Third Reading on the last occasion. No doubt there was some subtle reason which we novices do not understand. Although my right hon. Friend and others, who are not opposed to vivisection, Base their support of the Bill solely on the ground of preventing unnecessary suffering to animals and preventing vivisection upon dogs above all animals, except in these special circumstances, I speak from another standpoint, not a sentimental one—I hope I am not a sentimentalist—but I do say that you have got to hesitate, and hesitate long, when you put to your own conscience this ethical question: "Am I, for the sake of saving some suffering to a human being, entitled to inflict suffering upon a dumb animal such as the dog?" I say you have not, and I personally would just as soon vivisect some human being for the sake of the dog; in fact, I think some human beings could serve no better purpose in life. I suggested this on the Report stage, and the Under-Secretary said, "We will not, because we are not barbarians." He told us just before that no suffering was intended. If you will not have human criminals, there are conscientious objectors who arc of no material use in the world. But I do plead for the dog, because, as I say, I have a dog, and have had many dogs, and it is in no spirit of bathos, no spirit of insincerity, that I conclude my remarks to-day with the observation that, having dogs, studying dogs and loving dogs, as we all do, in the course of a strenuous life, frequently in times of great mental anguish and anxiety, I have always found the dog the most faithful and sympathetic friend, and I say I cannot go back to my home and look all my splendid and glorious dogs in the eyes if I do not do my best to support the Bill.

The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Dr. Addison): I think the House will thank the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken for having brought us back to the Bill we are discussing. Nevertheless, I am not able to accept the reproofs so generously showered upon us as to the breaches of faith which have been committed by the Government with the House, or to an extent indicated by the right hon. Member for North Hackney.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Not right hon. Gentleman yet.

Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Gentleman said, "unprecedented in Parliamentary history," or words to that effect. Anyone might think that the hon. Gentleman had not been in the House before, or had never seen opposition, or appreciated the fact that an Amendment might be unanimously and whole-heartedly supported, and then that Amendment having been secured—we will say—by some concession or the Government insertion of the Amendment in the Bill, finding the Government, or others, going whole-heartedly into the Lobby against the Bill as a whole. That is part of the ordinary Parliamentary procedure.
What was the position? It was that this Bill—and I should like to pay a tribute of admiration to the right hon. Baronet for the skill and, shall I say, the exercise of Parliamentary ability with which he got it through the Second Reading substantially without opposition— having reached that stage Amendments were made in Committee with the view of restricting the operation of the Bill as it then was. They were not in order. Therefore on the Report stage Amendments were brought forward which went as far as could be within the limits of the Order in amending the Bill in what was thought to be in the right direction. But there is no inconsistency in having supported an Amendment to minimise the harm which this Bill otherwise would have done, and afterwards voting against the Bill taken as a whole in deciding, after the Amendment has been incorporated, that even then it was not a measure which one could support. There is nothing inconsistent or unusual in that.

Mr.BOTTOMLEY: This particular Amendment was accepted by the author of the Bill, and constitutes the whole Bill.

Dr. ADDISON: In the first place the Amendment was not accepted.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Accepted by the House!

Dr. ADDISON: It was accepted by the House and moved by the Government. There is no doubt of that. It was moved by the Government so far as we could do it within the limits of the Order. I speak of the title.

Sir F. BANBURY: I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he is in error. It was not within the title of the Bill. The title of the Bill had to be altered afterwards because of this Amendment.

2.0 P.M.

Dr. ADDISON: That only makes my argument stronger. The c[...]eet of the Amendment of the title was to amend it to the extent indicated; but we are not bound, having got the Amendment, and as the Bill now is, to state that it is one which as a whole the House should accept—that we can recommend the House to accept it. We have considered it quite fully and with great care; the safeguards and Amendment were taken into consideration before we decided. Nevertheless we still recommend the House not to support the Bill. We came to the conclusion that, notwithstanding the Amendment, we would still advise the House to reject the Bill. There is nothing inconsistent in that procedure, nor do I think there is anything that can be fairly described in any way as not being enthusiastic. The Bill as it stands now does permit experiments in certain instances.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: With certain safeguard.

Dr. ADDISON: I am coming to that. The right hon. Gentleman said he loved dogs. So do we all. That is not the point. That is not the question. The question is are these things justifiable? Let us see what the facts are, because the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill said it is only a question of a certificate being required. That is just it. It is something you have to do in addition to what you have to do now. What have you to do now? A licence must be held for any experiments. They must be done in a licensed place. In the first place, therefore, everybody has to get a licence both for himself and for the premises. Then the animal must be fully anæsthetised, and remain under the anæsthetic. That certificate (a) may be suspended. In the case of an operation, or if the animal is required to recover, you must certificate
(b), which will allow it to recover from the anæsthetic, and not die. If it is a dog or a cat that is to be experimented upon you have to get a further certificate in addition to (a) and (b) under the general licence, that is certificate (e). That is the existing position. By this Bill it is proposed to add to these conditions certain qualifications which the right hon. Baronet in putting forward his case concealed.

Sir F. BAN BURY: No, no! I mentioned all these on the Report stage, but subsequently when the Bill became practically a Government measure, I did not think it necessary to waste the time of the House to go through all these things again.

Dr. ADDISON: As a matter of fact—

Sir F. BANBURY: You said "concealed."

Dr. ADDISON: I withdraw the word "concealed," and apologise. "Failed to mention," shall I say? because what the right hon. Baronet said was that all that was wanted was a certain certificate. It was on that statement that he based the whole of his argument. I suggest that any Member of the House familiar with its methods, and what debate means, would take away the impression that all that was involved was a certain certificate. That is not the case. I only say that the right hon. Baronet failed to mention these other things; but they are there all the same. Are we justified in imposing these further restrictions upon people who are already very frequently restricted, and especially restricted in the case of dogs, cats, and horses? Are we justified in this? Has a case been made out? I have not had a single case brought forward in this respect. Have these restrictions been evaded or improperly used? The question is: Has the existing scheme, which is very exacting, been found to be insufficient? No single case has been brought forward to show that it has been insufficient. Have they been insufficient for the prevention of cruelty? I suggest to the hon. Baronet that he has not brought forward a single case of that kind, and he cannot do it. I have read a good deal of this new literature to see what was in it, because in one respect I should like to say that I agree with the last speaker. I do not think this is a question which the House of Commons can be called upon to regard from the point of view of authority. It is not a question of the opinion of the medical profession so
much, but it is a question as to whether a case can be made out for this change or not. This is a deliberative Assembly, and it is up to the hon. Baronet to show that the existing arrangements are inadequate; and I say that he has not done so. When, in addition, you have to require a person of responsibility to go into every single experiment and you have to get responsible people to certify that it would necessarily be frustrated unless it is done in a certain way, you can see the enormous protection you have got there.
I will take two cases. I will take one case in which I was responsible for getting the people together to deal with the matter. When the Germans started using poisonous gas we got a number of experts together, and the experiments which led to the elaboration of the gas masks were many of them performed on dogs; and why? Simply for the reason given in the article to which reference has been made. It was because you could do it more easily, and the dog was an available animal of a suitable kind which you could keep under observation, and you cannot do that so well in the case of a horse or a mule or a chimpanzee. That is why those experiments were performed on dogs. I think we did elaborate the finest defence mask that there was in the field. Now. supposing you had said in this particular instance that to perform these experiments you must have a licence and have a licensed place and certificates A and B, and that you must also have a certificate in order to do the experiment on a dog, in which case you have to show that your experiment would necessarily be frustrated unless it is done on a dog. I think that is carrying it much too far. If you want to stop research altogether, then say so; but unless you are prepared to say that, then you are not justified in applying so many complicated restrictions which almost make it impossible to carry on these experiments. As another example take the experiments in connection with rickets in children. There we have the same process to go through. In view of the existing restrictions there, again, you are going to vitiate a very useful and an entirely painless series of experiments.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under one of the licences granted by the Home Office there is a special provision that pain may be inflicted if it is considered necessary for the experiment?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, I am quite aware of all that. Experiments in regard to rickets are a very important consideration, because hundreds and thousands of people are crippled for life with this disease. I do not know whether it is true or not, but we are told that this disease is probably due to a dietetic defect. It may not be so, but the evidence seems to indicate that it is. A dog can live on a similar diet consisting of animal and vegetable food. You can keep it in the laboratory, you can feed it at stated times, and it is in many ways similar to a human being for dietetic experiments. These experiments have been conducted on dogs because they arc clearly suitable, and to prove that the experiment would necessarily be frustrated if you did not have a. dog for the experiment would be asking for something which is wellnigh impossible. Therefore these experiments are very important, because you see these bandy-legged children, stunted in their growth, by tens of thousands in our great cities and centres of population, and if experiments on an animal is necessary in order to find out what is this particular defect, you have no right in the name of humanity to come in and try to stop them, or needlessly embarrass the medical profession in proceeding with that work. In view of recent experience and modern methods of dealing with this question, T think you would be placing a great burden on these people in regard to these certificates that you should not ask them to undertake.
It would not be in the interests of science or in the interests of promoting the health of the people that this Bill should be passed in this form. There is nothing inconsistent in the line that we are taking. We minimised the damage as much as we could in the previous proceedings of the House, but, having done so, we still feel that the words as they stand make research difficult and embarrassing, contrary to the best interests of the well-being of our people, and on that account, without any hesitation and with no breach of faith or any misgiving whatever. I ask the House to reject the Bill on Third Reading.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I have had occasion more than once to feel surprise at the action of the Treasury Bench in the absence of their recognised leaders, but I confess that on this occasion they have surpassed all their previous records. This
is a Bill which is essentially in the province of the Home Office. The Home Office have always dealt with Bills of this character. They administer these Bills, and up to this day they have dealt with this Bill. What has happened? When the Bill was before the House, on Report, the Home Office practically made it their Bill. The operative Clause is the Bill of the Homo Office. It is a Bill approved by the Home Office and carried by the House at the instance of the Home Office. Now, after hours of Parliamentary time have been spent in discussing this Home Office Amendment and adopting it, the right hon. Gentleman turns the Home Secretary down, prevents him, I presume, from coming to this House—at any rate, he is not here and occupies the position which ought to be occupied by that Minister. That is unprecedented in Parliamentary history within my knowledge, and I can only say that I should require to hoar some very strong reasons—which I was hoping to hear from the right hon. Gentleman, but which T have not heard —why the Home Secretary has been turned down and why the right hon. Gentleman usurps his place.
The sole question to be considered in regard to this Bill is whether or not we are going to hamper research unduly by demanding this additional certificate. This additional certificate is already demanded in the case of operations upon horses, asses, and mules, and I have never heard that there is any difficulty n obtaining it when it is required. I wish to say at once that no one would object more strongly than I should to anything that would unduly hamper those men who have done so much for humanity, but I am out against unnecessary pain. You may say that it never occurs. If it never occurs, why have we these Bills at all? Why have we had a Royal Commission? Why did that Royal Commission report that certain restrictions were necessary, and why were those recommendations embodied in an Act of Parliament? The answer is simple. There were cases proved before that Royal Commission in which pain was inflicted upon animals without adequate reason, and it is because we who support this Bill feel that pain ought not to be inflicted upon animals without adequate reason that we ask the House to pass it. This proposal which is now embodied in the Bill is not our proposal but the proposal of the Government, backed up by the Report of the Royal Commission. If
I thought that this Bill in its present; form would hamper research I should oppose it.
I have listened with considerable interest to hear what reasons could be suggested for rejecting the Bill after it had been approved by the Home Office, and I have not heard one. My hon. Friend, to whom we all listened with interest and respect, and to whose experience in medical affairs I would most gladly pay attention on appropriate occasions as regards research generally, suggested that this Bill was founded upon some implication that the medical profession delighted in torture. I should like to know who made that suggestion. If it has been made, I repudiate it. No rational person who supports this Bill suggests that the medical profession likes torture. I therefore put that suggestion aside. Then comes the right hon. Gentleman, in his position of usurper of the Home Secretary, and he says that this extra certificate is unnecessary. He did not give one single authority for that suggestion. He asked if there was any case for this additional certificate, and he said that he thought there was not. Has he read the Report of the Royal Commission which reported upon this subject after hearing all the experts, medical and otherwise? The Report said that this certificate was necessary and ought to be given before the licence was granted by the Home Secretary. I confess that, for my part, without belittling my right hon. Friend, I prefer the Report of the Royal Commission founded upon days and weeks of evidence of experts, and upon the opinion of the most eminent experts that could be appointed for the purpose at the time, to the offhand opinion, unsupported by any evidence at all, expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. What about his colleagues? Unfortunately, he differs from his colleagues. He may say, "So much the worse for them," but they may say, "So much the worse for him." His colleague at the Home Office, when he spoke, supported this Amendment and this extra certificate on the ground that it had the support of the Royal Commission. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman reads the report of the speeches of his colleagues in this House or elsewhere. Let me remind him that the Under-Secretary for the Home Office, speaking with the authority of the Home Office, referred to
the recommendation of the Royal Commission that this extra certificate should be granted in the case of dogs as it is already granted in the case of horses, asses, and mules. The Under-Secretary said:
Every recommendation in that Report, except the one in the Amendment which now stands in my name, has already been adopted by the Home Office … We now want the House of Commons to assist us, by voting for this Amendment, to adopt the remaining recommendations of the Royal Commission that sat upon this question, and I think that is an additional reason why this House, composed as we are of men with and in that scientific attainment, should take the conclusion of the Royal Commission."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1919, col. 775, Vol. 116.]
We, therefore, have against the opinion of my right hon. Friend, whose opinion on subjects outside this I value, the opinion of the majority of the Royal Commission and of the Home Office who have dealt with this matter from the very first. I would really ask the House to take some cognisance of the position in which the action of the Government has placed us. This Bill was brought in early in the Session, and the Government allowed it to pass. Why? It was either owing to incompetence on the part of the Government not knowing that it was coming on, though they now tell us that it goes to the root of all scientific research, or it was due to their ignorance, not knowing that it was an important Bill. In cither case, it does not seem a very creditable performance on the part of the Government to have allowed the Bill to pass without a Division when they now tell us that we are going to ruin research. The Bill went before a Committee upstairs. The Home Office were present and supported it in a halfhearted way, with the result that the Bill came back to this House on Report very much in the same form as it was originally framed.
And this is what happened: An agitation took place in the Press. Communications were written to the "Times" and other papers, and I regret to say that many of those communications indicated on the part of many scientific gentlemen a most astounding ignorance of the existing law and practice. They did not appear to know that under the existing law and practice not only were painful experiments permitted in certain cases, but that the Home Office were expressly issuing licences to permit those painful experiments. We were told in the letters to the "Times" that under no circumstances would any painful experiments be
performed, whereas the fact is that licences are granted now for a form of experiment by which a dog is put under an anæsthetic, and is allowed to remain alive after the anæsthetic ceases to operate, although the pain continues. The only case in which a dog is killed after he has recovered from the anæsthetic is where severe and permanent pain accrues.
This agitation arose in the Press after the Bill had been upstairs. The Home Office apparently was stimulated to action by it, and the result was that when the Bill came on on Report they remodelled it from top to bottom and rendered it an entirely different Hill. It was framed in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and recommended to this House in the form in which it now is, but now it has come on for Third Reading the Home Secretary disappears. The Under-Secretary for the Home Office is absent, and instead of them we have a right hon. Gentleman, I suppose, who is signalising his activities in his new sphere of office, on which I heartily congratulate him, but to which I should be very glad if he would confine himself. Why is the Home Secretary away? Why are the representatives of the Home Office not here to tell us why a few weeks ago they supported the Bill which is now before the House, and whether there is any reason for a change in their views? I regret to see that the Minister for Health has left his seat, perhaps he will come back presently. But the only reason I can suggest for the substitution of the Minister of Health for the Home Secretary is that the Home Secretary has lost the confidence—of whom? I am sure he has not lost confidence in himself, and I hesitate to suggest that he has lost the confidence of the Prime Minister, as if he had done that I assume we should have had the announcement in the usual form. I can only suppose that the right hon. Gentleman has lost the confidence of the Minister of Health. If he has I am exceedingly sorry for him, perhaps not so sorry as I should be if we were under different conditions from those which obtain to-day. We ought to be told why the Home Secretary is not here, and whether he has lost the confidence of anyone and especially of the Prime Minister. When we see these extraordinary Parliamentary fluctuations and transformations, in which one Minister throws over another
without justifying his action, is it not about time we had some attempt to coordinate the Ministries in this House. Is it not time the Prime Minister came back to keep his party in order, and to reconcile, it' possible, differences between Ministers?
I think there is a good deal in what my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) observed, when he said it was very like a Parliamentary breach of faith when one Minister implored the House to accept a particular view which was in consequence embodied in the Bill, and then another Minister, in the absence of the first Minister, came down and asked the House to do exactly the opposite. But whether it is a breach of faith or not, it is not cricket. It is not even Second Eleven cricket. In that state of things I will venture to ask what is our duty as independent Members of this House? The Minister of Health has been going round to Members appealing to them for their support in the great business of housing in which he is concerned, and I am sure there is no one man in this House who is not willing to give the most earnest help in that great national work. Ho asks us to trust to his sagacity and competency. I confess his action to-day has not increased my confidence in either his sagacity or his competency. We pose to-day as being an independent House of Commons. I believe one of the great merits of this new House is that on proper occasions it shows independence of Government dictation and is willing to vote according to its conscience in the best interests of the nation. I venture earnestly and humbly to appeal to Members of the House to disregard this Government dictation, to disregard the throe-line whip, to abide by the decision of the House which it came to on the request of the Home Secretary and to overthrow the Minister of Health, and by so doing to pass this Act in a form which will not interfere one iota with the prosecution of legitimate research, but which will impose restrictions advocated by a competent body—by a Royal Commission—for the protection of dogs from unnecessary pain.

Mr. R. McNEILL: My hon. Friend has made a capital speech as he always does, and I am sure we have listened to him with great interest. But I have heard the same sort of speech very often before.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Never on an occasion like this.

Mr. McNEILL: Yes, I have heard such speeches sometimes from him and sometimes from others. Indeed, I have myself tried, with much less success and competency, to make the same sort of speech. We all know circumstances under which we are asked, with dramatic rhetoric, "Why is not this Minister here? Where is he? Why is that space on the Treasury Bench vacant? Why is the duty which should be performed by one Minister being done by somebody else?" All that has been excellently said by my hon. Friend. Speaking for myself, I am certainly quite as independent a Member of this House as my hon. and learned Friend. I want to approach the vote I shall give and the opinions I have formed on independent and simple lines. If I want to be independent of a three-line Whip, I also want to be independent of the sentimentalism of my hon. and learned Friend. I have listened to all his accusations of breach of faith. I see no breach of faith. I see nothing very much out of the ordinary line of Parliamentary procedure. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that one thing is unprecedented. I cannot exactly recall any particular case in which a Bill which at one time was in the care of one Department was at a subsequent stage in the care of another. So far I agree with my hon. and learned Friend, but is there anything improper in that?

Sir J. BUTCHER: Yes.

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot share that view. It is perfectly natural. So far as a breach of faith is concerned, the reiteration of that charge shows a very great lack of confidence by my hon. and learned Friend and his associates in the strength of their real case on the merits of this Bill. Otherwise they would not spend so much time speaking about a breach of faith. We had a very amusing speech from the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley). I am sorry he is not here now. He supported the Bill on two main grounds. First, that the scientific knowledge of the first century was not equal to the scientific knowledge of the sixteenth century. He objected to the rejection of the Bill because they apparently did not know about the circulation of the blood in the days before Christ. That was an inadequate reason for supporting this particular Bill. The second reason he gave was that he had a dog. He told us also that he was not a sentimentalist. Taking those two state-
ments together, I want to find out what was the relevance of his fortunate possession of a dog to his support of this Bill, because I have a dog and yet am in favour of the rejection of the Bill. The relevance of one side or the other is about equal, and both are near zero. There are two reasons why I favour the rejection of the Bill. I could understand it if it were based on the ground of objection to cruelty to animals.

Sir J. BUTCHER: It is based on the avoidance of unnecessary pain to dogs.

Mr. McNEILL: Why does my hon. and learned Friend not object to cruelty to monkeys? Apparently he does not object to that at all. None of us are asked to object to the perpetration of any amount of this cruelty on monkeys. In addition to being an admission in logic, it is a failure in filial piety, because if we are to take steps for the protection of animals at all as against the services which they may be called upon to render to the human race, surely we should begin with the particular species which we have been told are our ancestral stock. Therefore let us put out of our minds the idea that it is cruelty to animals which is aimed at in this Bill. It is not; it is cruelty to a particular sort of animal, a particular animal to which, no doubt, we are more personally attached than others. That fact should put us on our guard against this sort of legislation which is based on sentiment. A few years ago a scientist, not very much in favour of democratic forms of government as they existed, thought the time might come when the failure of democracy would be shown in the fact that it was too uneducated to support scientific opinion. I do not know whether, if he were alive to-day, he would think that this is a fulfillment of his prophecy, but I am sure that if he found in the Bill the fulfillment of that prophecy as to the uneducated nature of democratic government he would be very much surprised to find my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) and my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) leading that undemocratic and uneducated cause. There is one reason why I am in favour of the rejection of the Bill. If it is passed on the ground of sentiment, it would not mean that you would prevent these operations taking place. Neither this Bill nor any Bill of the sort would prevent these operations taking place. If you prevent
these operations taking place in this country by British scientists, the only result would be that an enormous number of dogs now painlessly put an end to at Battersea would be sold for a few shillings or a few pence and sent over to Boulogne or Ostend, where they would be operated upon by foreign scientists instead of our own, and, so far as I know, there is no law in other countries providing so much protection as they get here under the various certificates that have to be obtained. I am in favour of the rejection of the Bill—first, because the confinement of it to dogs proves it is not based on any high morality as regards our obligations to animals, but on pure sentiment for the particular sort of animal to which we are attached: and, secondly, because if you could make it effective in this country you could not make it effective elsewhere, and therefore you could not prevent an abuse— if it is an abuse—in another channel where it would be carried on under much worse circumstances.

Lieut.-Colonel W, GUINNESS: There is one point in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) which ought to be corrected. He talked of the recommendations embodied in the Royal Commission's Report having been carried into law by subsequent legislation. There has been no legislation arising out of that Report. The Royal Commission made certain recommendations, and they have been carried out by administrative action. Secondly, there was no recommendation in the sense which the hon. and learned Member suggested. All that the Royal Commission said was:
If any alteration is made in the existing procedure the majority of us would agree that the special enactments now applicable to horses, asses and mules might be extended to dogs and also to cats.
That is a very different thing from saying that the Royal Commission recommended a change in the law in that respect. It is quite true that during the Report stage the Bill was practically transformed, but if it is less disastrous to medical science now, it is more than ever libellous on the medical profession. It was originally founded on the principle that no amount of benefit to the human race justified the infliction of pain on the dog. The promoter of the Bill told us that he had no objection to monkeys being used for vivisection, and that he only wished to limit it in the case of dogs; but his own opinion,
in all respects, will not count in the future. Once this principle has been admitted, it must be extended, and, as is suggested in the Report of the Royal Commission, it must be extended to all the higher animals. The right hon. Baronet(Sir F. Banbury) said that the advance of knowledge might have been obtained in some other way than by experiments on dogs.

Sir F. BANBURY: The "Lancet" said so.

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: He quoted the "Lancet" as saying so. It might be obtained by experiments on human beings, but that would not mean that it would be better to experiment on human beings than on dogs. The House at large did not agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Bottomley), who said he would prefer experiments on certain human beings than on dogs. This statement in the "Lancet" no way confirms that less suffering as a whole would have been inflicted if these experiments had been carried out on some other subject. Anyone who, like myself, has had a pet monkey must recognise that the intelligence and power of suffering in a monkey is very much greater than it is in a dog.

Sir F. BANBURY: Oh !

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Has my right hon. Friend ever had a monkey? It is to experiments on monkeys that we owe a great proportion of the existing knowledge of the causation and treatment of syphilis. Life is one in its origin. It is subject to loss by disease and death, which are unlimited by classification of species, and you cannot say to science "thus far and no further can you go," and medical research is not to be tied by artificial limits, unless you are going to condemn that research to absolute sterility and uselessness. Some people do not believe in doctors. Probably my right hon. Friend does not. Very likely he enjoys such good health that he may never need one, and I really believe that when he cuts his finger he would never dream of such a faddish cure as the use of antiseptics, but he is probably in the habit of collecting cobwebs and applying them in the same way that his great grandfather used to. But others of us have recourse to doctors, and do not feel that we can consistently take advantage of their science, and at the same time prevent them from having an opportunity of increasing their knowledge. Besides to
support the Bill with any consistency one ought to be a vegetarian. No one otherwise could strain at the gnat of suffering involved in vivisection and swallow the camel of cruelty which takes place in our slaughter-houses. My right hon. Friend may live on nuts. If so, I congratulate him on having avoided the dyspeptic habit, which is generally associated either as cause or effect with that form of diet. But any of us who are not vegetarians are, I think, obliged, unless we are guided entirely by sentiment, to vote against the Bill. The original Bill was founded on some principle and was no aspersion on the humanity of doctors, but in its new form its only meaning is to endorse the charges of in humanity which have been brought by anti-vivisectionists against the medical profession. There is already very great difficulty in obtaining a licence for vivisection. To increase the difficulty and to add to the delay would only be justified if these carefully selected men who receive their licences for experiments on animals have shown themselves unfit to be trusted to use with humanity these powers which they are given.
My right hon. Friend has made a great point that certain evidence shows that painful experiments are necessary on animals. That is an admission which he quoted from vivisectionists. Of course, vivisection involves pain. I do not think anyone would deny it for a moment. But the question is whether that pain is unnecessary and, therefore, amounts to cruelty. We must in this avoid sentiment. Pain is necessary. There was a great surgeon who said that pain was a lighthouse on the rocks of ill-health. You have only to observe a child to see that without the experience of pain a human being would very quickly bring itself to an untimely end, by burning itself to death, or by breaking its neck or some other form of premature death. The question to most of us it not whether vivisection inflicts pain, but whether it really gets value for the pain inflicted. I believe that for every animal that suffers disease and pain from experiment, many more animals or human beings are thereby saved from suffering. I see no evidence ever adduced that the doctor who enjoys his carefully guarded rights to vivisection uses them except in the most humane manner. The Bill in its present form is an absolute libel on men who risk their lives in the investigation of disease. To handle these deadly viruses of disease is by no
means small risk, and many of these investigators have paid the forfeit of their health and even of their lives in their efforts to discover and combat the springs of disease. I think, in view of the way the medical profession do their work for humanity for a small fee or reward, and sacrifice everything in their fight against disease, it would be a most unfair recognition of their work to pass such a Bill as this. The profession has never stood higher in the public estimation than it does to-day, and millions of our fellow subjects in the War have learned to bless the doctors in their self-sacrifice and their humanity. I do not believe for a moment that my right hon. Friend intended this Bill to be the instrument of an attack on the medical profession into which his vivisectionist supporters have turned it. We have all admired his craft and subtlety in steering the Bill to a Third Reading in spite of its being opposed to the opinion of the overwhelming majority of this House, and it would be a graceful way of removing the bitterness which has been stirred up between doctors and their anti-vivisectionist accusers if, recognising that the House does not agree that vivisection should be entirely abolished, he would withdraw the Bill.

Colonel BURN: I shall certainly support the Bill, and it is to myself and my hon. Friends with whom I am associated a very great disappointment that the Amendment which was framed by the Government, and which the House was asked to support, is not before the House now, and that the rejection has been moved. I do not grumble at the Bill being in the hands of another Minister. In these matters it is always a pity, but there is generally some good reason for it, and I do not for a moment suggest that the reason of the absence of the Under-Secretary for the Home Department is that he did not like to have the conduct of the Bill after the proposition he made the last time. Nor am I for one moment going to say I consider the medical profession practice cruelty. I am certain in all their experiments they do not intend to cause unnecessary pain on the animals on which they operate, but I feel myself that there are other animals on which these experiments can be made and the result, I do not doubt, would be equally good. I consider that a dog stands in a peculiar position, that he is on a plane above other animals, and that we by our long association with dogs have raised him to that plane.
The dog trusts us and is our best friend. Hon. Gentlemen may say that is sentiment. I do not mind if they do, but I have that very strong feeling and I know that many of my friends have the same. The Royal Commission Report was taken as the basis on which this Bill, with the Government Amendment was framed, and when you get the scientists of this country appointed in order to examine from every point of view a question so important and controversial as this question, I think that we in the House of Commons, men of all professions and men of no professions, not having the same opportunity of going into these matters so closely as the Royal Commission, which was composed of gentlemen who know everything that they are called upon to consider in connection with this matter, should, when the Commission comes to a decision and have reported act upon that Report in this House. There are many electors in every constituency who think very seriously about this measure and feel very strongly about it. It is not only the old ladies of both sexes who have been

referred to in this House to-day "who are interested, but live people who are fond of dogs and who have had dogs living with them all their lives. Something is to be said for these people, whether they be male or female, and when such strong feelings are expressed on their part in connection with this Bill I think proper attention should be paid to them. I am sorry that the medical profession has come here, in such strength to put forward arguments from their point of view.

Dr. MURRAY: Only one spoke.

Colonel BURN: But he spoke for all. I congratulate my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) and my hon. and learned Friend (Sir J. Butcher) for their efforts on behalf of the Bill, and I feel certain that though it looks as if we may be defeated in the Lobby, that when the opportunity comes again we shall be able to fight for the dogs.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 62; Noes, 101

Division No. 49.]
AYES.
[3.0 p.m.


Barnett, Captain Richard W.
Entwistle, Major C. F.
McMicking, Major Gilbert


Barrand, A. R.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Meysey Thompson, Lt.-Col. E. C.


Betterton, H. B.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Moles, Thomas


Bottomley, Horatio
Ganzoni, Captain F. C.
Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon, C. W.
Gardner, E. (Berks., Windsor)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)


Bowyer, Capt. G. W. E.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Breese, Major C. E.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh)
Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)


Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)
Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Parry, Major Thomas Henry


Burn, Col. C. R (Torquay)
Griggs, Sir Peter
Pinkham, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles


Campbell, J. G. D.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leic, Loughboro')
Pownall, Lieut-Colonel Assheton


Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill
Hancock, John George
Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.


Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender
Henderson, Major V. L.
Simm, Col. M. T.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Crooks, Rt. Hon. William
Hurst, Major G. B.
Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Waterson, A. E.


Dawes, J. A.
Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)


Denison-Pender, John C.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander



Donald, T.
Kenyon, Barnet
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir


Duncannon, Viscount
Lort-Williams, J.
F. Banbury and Sir J. Butcher.


Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham, S.)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)



NOES.


Adair, Rear Admiral
Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.
Dockrell, Sir M.


Addisom, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Buckley, Lieutenant-Colonel A.
Du Pre, Colonel W. B.


Astbury, Lt-Com. F. W.
Casey, T. W.
Edgar, Clifford


Bagley, Captain E. A.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)


Baldwin, Stanley
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)
Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Chadwick, R. Burton
Falcon, Captain M.


Barnston, Major Harry
Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Farquharson, Major A. C.


Bell, Lieut-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Coats, Sir Stuart
Fell, Sir Arthur


Birchall, Major J. D.
Cohen, Major J. B. B.
Foreman, H.


Blair, Major Reginald
Coote, W. (Tyrone, S.)
Foxcroft, Captain C.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Univ.)
Galbraith, Samuel


Bowles, Col. H. F.
Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Greig, Colonel James William


Brassey, H. L. C.
Craig, Lt.-Com. N. (Isle of Thanet)
Guinness, Capt. Hon. R. (Southend)


Briggs, Harold
Craik, Right Hon. Sir Henry
Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
Hailwood, A.


Haslam, Lewis
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Steel, Major S. Strang


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)
Murchison, C. K.
Sugden, W. H.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Murray, John (Leeds, W.)
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


Jodrell, N. P.
Nall, Major Joseph
Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)


Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Pearce, Sir William
Vickers, D.


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)
Pratt, John William
Walker, Col. William Hall


Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Wallace, J.


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Purchase, H. G.
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford)
Raeburn, Sir William
Waring, Major Walter


M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Macleod, John Mackintosh
Rogers, Sir Hallewell
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)
Royce, William Stapleton
Woods, Sir Robert


Magnus, Sir Philip
Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)



Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Capt.


Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
F. Guest and Colonel Sanders,


Mason, Robert
Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston)



Question put, and agreed to.

Words added.

Resolved,

"That this House declines to proceed further with a measure which would impose an unnecessary and vexatious obstacle to medical research."

Orders of the Day — NURSES' REGISTRATION BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 2.—(Interpretation.)

In this Act—

"The Council" means the General Nursing Council for the Training and Registration of Nurses in the United Kingdom;

The term "registered nurse" means a woman nurse who is for the time being registered in the woman nurses' general register; the term "registered male nurse" means a male nurse who is for the time being registered in the male nurses' supplementary register; the term "registered mental nurse "means a mental nurse who is for the time being registered in the mental nurses' supplementary register;

The term "Local Government Board" means in relation to institutions in Scotland and Ireland, the Local Government Board for Scotland, and the Local Government Board for Ireland respectively.

Colonel BURN: I beg to move, after the word "register" ["supplementary register"] to insert the words
the term 'registered children's nurse,' means a children's nurse who is for the time being registered in the children's nurses' supplementary register.

Major BARNETT: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Constitution and Appointment of Council.)

(1) The Council shall consist of forty-two persons to be appointed or elected as follows:—

(a) Three persons to be appointed by the Privy Council;
554
(b) Four registered medical practitioners, two to be appointed by the Local Government Board for England, one for England, one for Wales, one by the Local Government Board for Scotland, and one by the Local Government Board for Ireland;
(c) Three registered medical practitioners to be appointed by the British Medical Association, one to be resident in England, one to be resident in Scotland, and one to be resident in Ireland;
(d) One registered medical practitioner to be appointed by the Medical-Psychological Association;
(e) One registered medical practitioner to be appointed by the medical superintendents of fever hospitals approved by the Council as training schools for nurses in fever nursing;
(f) Four persons to be appointed by the nurse training schools attached to hospitals approved by the Council; two by the nurse training schools in England and Wales, one by the nurse training schools in Scotland, and one by the nurse training schools in Ireland;
(g) Eighteen registered women nurses to be elected as the direct representatives of the women nurses in the General Register; eight to be elected by the nurses registered in England, two by the nurses registered in Wales, four by the nurses registered in Scotland, and four by the nurses registered in Ireland: Provided that of the eight elected by the nurses registered in England two at least shall be past or present matrons of nurse training schools attached to hospitals approved by the Council, one of whom shall be registered in the General Register as "also trained in fever nursing"; of the four elected by the nurses registered in Scotland one at least shall be a past or present matron of a nurse training school attached to a hospital approved by the Council; and similarly of the four elected by the nurses registered in Ireland, one at least shall be a past or present matron of a nurse training school attached to a hospital approved by the Council;
(h) Two registered male nurses to be elected as direct representatives by the nurses' register;
(i) Two registered mental nurses to be elected as direct representatives by the nurses registered in the mental nurses' register;
555
(j) Two registered women nurses to be appointed by the Royal British Nursing, Association;
(k) Two registered women nurses to be appointed by the College of Nursing, Limited:

Provided that on the first constitution of the Council there shall be thirty-one persons appointed as follows:—

(a) Four persons to be appointed by the Privy Council, not being registered medical practitioners, or nurses, or persona engaged in, or associated with., the regular direction or provision of the services of nurses;
(b) Four registered medical practitioners, two to Be appointed by the Local Government Board for England, one for England and one for Wales, one by the Local Government Board for Scotland, and one by the Local Government Board for Ireland;
(c) Four registered medical practitioners to be appointed by the British Medical Association, one to be resident in England, one to be resident in Scotland, one to be resident in Ireland, and one to be resident in Wales;
(d) One registered medical practitioner to be appointed by the Medico-Psycho logical Association;
(e) Eighteen women nurses, of whom eight shall be resident in England, two in Wales, four in Scotland, and four in Ire land, to be nominated, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board for England and Wales, the Local Government Board for Scotland, and the Local Government Board for Ireland, respectively, by the following bodies, and in the following numbers:

One by the Queen Victoria's Jubilee Institute for Nurses;
One by the Asylum Workers' Association:
One by the North Wales and South Wales Nursing Associations;
Four by the Royal British Nurses' Association;
Four by the College of Nursing, Limited; and
Seven, representing the following societies of trained nurses, by the Central Committee for the State Registration of Nurses:

(1) The Matrons' Council of Great Britain and Ireland;
(2) The Society for the State Registration of Trained Nurses;
(3) The National Union of Trained Nurses;
(4) The Fever Nurses' Association;
(5) The Scottish Nurses' Association;
(6) The Irish Nurses' Association;
(7) The Irish Nursing Board;

and the persons so appointed shall hold office for a period of two years and during such period shall form a register of persons entitled to be registered under this Act.

(2) The members of the Council shall appoint one of the members of the Council to be President of the Council, and also one of the members of the Council to be Vice-President of the Council.

(3) The Lord President of the Council shall. as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, take such steps as he deems advisable for constituting the first Council and securing the appointment of members thereof, and for summoning the first meeting of the Council.

Colonel BURN: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "forty-two," and to insert instead thereof the word "forty-five."

Major BARNETT: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move to
leave out the word "forty-two," and to insert instead thereof the word "forty-eight."
The object of this Amendment is to make provision for the inclusion of representatives of the local authorities. That can only be done if the number is increased to forty-eight.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): The House has already decided to insert the word "forty-five."

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I rise to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraphs (a) to (k), inclusive.
This Amendment is in no sense a wrecking Amendment. Every Member in this House is in favour of the registration of nurses. We know what a noble army these women have been. We know how badly they have been paid in the past. We know their long hours of work, longer than those of any other profession in the country. And anything that can be done for their benefit or can raise their status will have the support of this House. But in trying to get them that support we must see that the council which will govern this body is an equitable council, fair to the nurses and fair to the public. I am sorry to have noticed during the last few months, from the different circulars which. Members of this House have been receiving, that there is a very strong feeling of resentment between different bodies of nurses with regard to this Bill. If it were possible for the Central Committee to withdraw this Bill and for the Government themselves to bring in a Bill, that would be the best course to pursue. Even if this Bill goes through this afternoon, it will not give the satisfaction which we want to give to the whole nursing profession in this country; and I would ask your ruling as to whether I am in order in asking the promoters of this Bill to withdraw it?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member proposes to move an Amendment, and he cannot raise this point of Order on his own Amendment.

Dr. ADDISON: Perhaps it may save time if, by leave of the House, I make a statement now. The Government have considered this matter carefully since the Bill passed through Committee. They arranged for meetings with the various parties who are interested in this Bill and another Bill of quite a different character dealing with the same subject which has been introduced into the House of Lords, and we have had conferences with them with the view of discovering whether a sufficient common measure of agreement could be reached by which we could obtain a Bill which would give effect to the registration of nurses, which, I think, by common consent, is regarded as most necessary and desirable. I am sorry to say that the results of these conferences have convinced me against my will that such agreement is not attainable. I think it arises from the fact that, whilst everybody agrees that the registration of nurses is desirable and necessary, it was quite clear in the conferences that those who are interested in the two Bills were not by any means agreed, nor were they likely to agree, as to what was implied by registration. It was quite clear that in some quarters it was thought that the authority responsible for registration should deal with the conditions of training—not only the standard arrived at, but the conditions and conduct of training. If you take the parallel case of the General Medical Council, you will find that, while it days down the standard attainable, it does not conduct the medical schools. The conduct of the medical school is an educational function. The examining bodies are charged with the responsibility of seeing that their candidates receive a certain minimum standard of training and that they reach certain medical attainments. But the educational practices of these bodies are not, of course, controlled in any way by the Council. As educational bodies they receive grants from the Board of Education, and the same would apply with respect to nurses. Another difficulty which has been made clear by the conferences is that it appears to have been thought by some that as an essential part of the registration the body responsible for the register should control the con-
ditions of employment, which, again, is a function quite apart from the semi-judicial purpose of such a body. The conditions of employment of nurses or mid-wives or anybody else are matters of which, no doubt, we shall have to take cognisance when the time comes—I hope it will be shortly—when we have to make grants. It may be that the conditions of employment will then have to be considered. I quite agree with those who attach importance to the conditions of the employment of nurses. Nurses have been scandalously underpaid and grossly overworked, and it is about time that proper or improved conditions of employment were secured for them. Still, that is not the function to be exercised by a semi-judicial body which has to decide who is to be on a register. I found that the differences on these and kindred subjects were so great that it was quite out of the question to bring about agreement. The controversy appears to have been unfortunately mixed up with personal and sectional issues which cannot be reconciled.
I have consulted the Government, and I am authorised to say, both in respect of this Bill and of the other Bill referred to, that neither of them is a proper Bill, nor do I see any chance of making either of them a proper Bill, to carry out what we think should be the terms and purpose of a measure dealing with nurses' registration. With the best will in the world, it does not seem to be practical to make this a Bill which will secure passage into law. Therefore I would suggest, whether in the interests of expediting nurses' registration those concerned in this Bill and in the other might think it wise to drop them, and I will undertake at the earliest possible time, on behalf of the Government, to introduce a measure providing for the registration of nurses. As far as possible, I will consult them on the terms of the Bill as to its general and main purposes. Whilst on the one hand we cannot saddle a registration authority with duties that do not properly belong to it, nor can we promote the interests of any sectional institution, on the other hand we will deal with public interests, we will take those concerned into our confidence, and as far as possible I hope they will concur in what we propose. We are prepared to make ourselves responsible for such proposals to Parliament, and to give effect to registration as soon as we can, subject to the exigencies of the Session. You may take
that as a bonâ-fide pledge. On that understanding, I think it might be for the convenience of the House if both these Bills did not go any further. I should like to say that we are very cognisant of the tact and patience shown by the hon. and gallant Member who is in charge of this Bill, and of the interest he has shown in nurses' registration. I fully recognise that. But from what I can learn, if this Bill does go to the Report stage to-day the chances of it finding its way to the Statute Book are very small indeed. The method I suggest is, after all, the shortest way and the best way to the end in view.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraphs (a) to (k) inclusive, and to insert instead thereof the words,
namely, one person to be appointed by the Privy Council, one person by the British Medical Association, two persons by the College of Nursing, Limited, one person by the Royal British Nurses' Association, and thirty-seven nurses by election on the part of all nurses duly registered, the first election to take place on the expiration of two years from the passing hereof,
I must say I have listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with some disappointment. I thought there might be a chance of carrying out my suggestion. With regard to Clause 4 of the Bill I am going to submit that the Council for governing the nurses should be a council composed mainly of nurses. A democratic body, on the principle of "government of the nurses by the nurses." We know that the supporters of the Bill before the House have made several charges against the Bill which is at present in the other House, or rather charges against the College of Nursing. One grave charge has been made that the reason why the College of Nursing have got such a large number of nurses on their register, namely, over 14,500, and funds to the extent of £40,000, has been that they have been blackmailing nurses to sign the register and held out the promise that they should be placed on the first State register. It is needless for me to say that that is quite untrue, because the college could not have promised that. It is also said that the College of Nursing was not in favour of State registration and that it is only the central committee that is in favour of State registration. I should like the House to know that at the second meeting held by the College of Nursing in London State registration of nurses was
put forward as a definite part of their programme. At the first meeting there was not a unanimous agreement among the nurses on the subject and the College of Nursing, being mainly an educational body, did not at that moment adopt the system of State registration. But, as I have pointed out, at their second meeting held in London they finally adopted State registration of nurses as a definite plank in their platform. Moreover, a great many members of the then central committee went over to the College of Nursing Association. It would seem to me to be nothing more or less than an injustice that of the eighteen places allotted to women nurses fourteen should be offered to societies, eleven of which are allied to each other and who represent only a small section, less than 4,000 members, of the nursing profession, whilst four only are allotted to the College of Nursing. The British Nurses' Association claims to have a membership of 30,000, but we have never been able to see their register. Registers are in existence, but those registers are not open to the public, whereas the registers of the College of Nursing, with its membership of over 14,500, are open to anyone who cares to see them. We Have no idea whatever whether the British Nursing Association has a membership of 30,000. Even if they have, we do not know whether those are certified trained nurses, and in fact we know nothing whatever about them. Again, 8,000 belong to nine other societies mentioned in the Bill, and they vote several times in the different societies. I should like to point out also that the number of matrons belonging to one of those societies is not known. On the other hand, we do know that over four hundred matrons do not belong to that society, and if we take the number of matrons in this country altogether there are not many more than four hundred, so that the number belonging to this society is infinitesimal. We consider that the council should be composed mainly of nurses and that it should be a democratic body and not an autocratic body as it is at present. Surely it should be the nurses who should govern themselves.

Major HURST: I beg to second the Amendment.
The object of it is to substitute for the very undemocratic character of Clause 4 a permanent council for the registration of nurses which shall consist mainly of nurses. By the Amendment, thirty-seven
out or the forty-two members of this council will be nurses. That represents what any profession must look to as the goal of its members—government of the nurses for the nurses by the nurses. Our complaint against Clause 4 as it is now drawn is that the permanent council for the registration of nurses is undemocratic, is unrepresentative, and is perverse. By Clause 4 only eighteen of the members of this permanent council are to be nurses out of a total of forty-two, and out of that eighteen only eight are to be representatives of the general body of nurses of this country, and that number is whittled down again to six by the proviso that two of those eight must necessarily be matrons. A further complaint against the Clause is that of the nominated members of the council, twenty-four in number, only two represent the College of Nursing with its membership of over 14,000, or something like two-thirds of the nursing profession of this country. It does seem an absurd thing that this highly representative college should have only two of the forty-two nominated members. We say Clause 4 is undemocratic, and we want the council to be democratic. We also say that Clause 4 as it stands does not supply adequate representation in accordance with the wishes of the nurses of this country. Mention has been made as to the numbers who are supporting the Bill as it now stands and the numbers who support the Amendments which we wish to bring forward. I submit that point is to a very great extent material in arriving at a decision whether to accept the Bill as it now stands or the Amendments. In the Memorandum which accompanies this Bill something like 30,000 medical practitioners and nurses are claimed as supporting the Bill in its present form, but when the House bears in mind that of that 30,000 who are alleged to be supporting this Bill 22,000 are doctors, they will see what a small residue is left of nurses, and that the whole of the British Medical Association, consisting of the great body of doctors of this country, are included in that figure of 30,000. So far as I have been able to find out there has been no expressed opinion given by the doctors of this country with regard to the superior merit of this Bill over the Bill pending in another place. On the contrary, all the doctors I have come across speak in the very highest terms of the College of Nursing and disapprove of this Bill in its present form.
Not only are the great majority of nurses against this Bill in its present form and in favour of the Amendments which we are moving, but also the flower of the nursing profession is distinctly against the Bill. Speaking for my own district—and I have the honour to represent a district in which a large proportion of the nurses of Manchester live and vote —I can say that all the leading representatives of public opinion among the nurses there are in favour of the College of Nursing scheme, and do not approve of this Bill in its present form, I am told in answer to that, that the matrons are the uppercrust of the profession, and ought not to count. But that is a ludicrous argument. If you wished to take the opinion of the Bar you would not exclude the opinion of King's Counsel, and if you are going to take the opinion, of the medical profession you would not exclude the opinion of consultants. And I think the House ought to attach very great weight to the representations which have been made in the last few months to the effect that the leaders of opinion among the nurses do not wish to see Clause. 4 in its present form become part of the law of the land, greatly as they favour the idea of registration. A very large proportion of medical men and laymen who are associated with the government and management of hospitals are hostile to this Bill in its present form, and particularly to this Clause. I have been told we ought to disregard that opinion because it is not the opinion of nurses, but where you have, as in the present case, the opinion of the nurses mainly in favour of the College of Nursing Bill, and also the same opinion expressed by those eminent men in the medical profession who are most keenly interested in the education and organisation of nurses, surely great weight must attach to their judgment; and there, again, the doctors I have come across who are most closely associated with the work of education and organisation in the medical and nursing professions are all of one mind. Clause 4 in its present form is not calculated to attract nurses to be registered at all. There is no magic in registration. If this Bill or any other Bill with regard to the registration of nurses passes into law no penalties are going to be placed on nurses who do not register themselves. They will still be able, if otherwise qualified, to act as
nurses and to wear nurses' uniform. The whole point of giving legal sanction to registration is to attract nurses not merely to become qualified but also registered.
There is nothing in this Bill holding out any attractions to nurses to become registered nurses such as we all want to exist. We want to see this attraction, but the Bill holds out no such attraction. In the scheme which is now pending in another place, and which has the support of the College of Nursing, there is something much more than mere registration held out to attract nurses on to the register. There is the nation's fund for nurses available. There is the utilisation of the existing register of the College of Nursing, and, in fact, there is a large and hopeful scheme for putting the nursing profession on a much more highly organised and much more educational basis than it is at the present time. It was disappointing to hear from the Minister of Health that he cannot accept the College of Nursing scheme in its present form, and also that he regards registration as something absolutely apart from the question of organisation and education- We who are supporting the Amendment do not look upon registration in that light at all. We wish to see it something much more than writing a name down in a book and paying a small subscription. We want to see it made a stepping-stone to a higher organisation and more continuous and more permanent system of education than at present exists in the nursing profession. For these reasons I am supporting the Amendment, although I do not regard it as a perfect Amendment, but I have this hope in supporting it, that, by showing by our votes the way in which we regard Clause 4 as it stands, we may do something to induce the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Captain Barnett) to withdraw his Bill in favour of a Government Bill, which is, after all, what all true lovers of the cause of registration for nurses must wish to see. We are not trying to wreck this Bill. Nothing is further from our minds than to defeat registration, which undoubtedly must be desired by all right-thinking men. Nurses have as much right to be registered as have barristers, solicitors, doctors, or any other occupation. We are not out to wreck the aims of this Bill, but, in asking for the substitution of new councils for the councils which are proposed in this Bill, we are trying to urge upon the House and through the House
upon the Government the need to bring in the right sort of Bill which will satisfy all these different sects among the nurses, so that the organisation, the education, and the registration of this great and deserving profession may be placed on sound and permanent lines.

Major BARNETT: I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment. I am quite prepared to accept the assurance of the Mover of the Amendment that it is not intended to be a wrecking Amendment, but I can assure him that the effect of it would be to wreck the Bill at this stage of progress, when private Members have only got two-Fridays after Whitsuntide, and this is one of them, and we have only got up till five o'clock to deal with these Amendments. If I were to accept this Amendment, which goes to the whole root of the Bill, I say it would be fatal to the measure as it stands, and as it has gone through Committee, and therefore I must oppose it. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment appealed to me to drop the Bill, and then to the Government to pledge themselves to introduce a measure. A certain pledge has been given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, but I am bound to say that I am not prepared to commit hari kari even at the suggestion of my right hon. Friend. This is a private Member's Bill. I have never asked for the assistance of the Government. We have made every attempt to meet the views of the College of Nursing. On the question of representation, they had originally only two representatives on the Council, as against twelve, but that has been increased in Committee to four as against eleven, and I have gone further to-day in order to make it eight as against eleven, and it is our Bill. That offer, I think, I am not committing a breach of confidence in saying, is considered by the Government as a fair offer and it has been refused. I stand by the Bill as it is. I am not going to discuss this Amendment on its merits, and I ask my hon. Friends not to discuss it on its merits, but, if it goes to a Division, to vote it down.

Lieut.-Colonel MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I rise to support the hon. Member who has just sat down, in his endeavour to carry this Bill through. I confess that I had considerable sympathy with the Amendment which I undersood had the -support of a considerable section of the nursing profession. But it was said that the Amendment was brought forward on
democratic grounds; it seems to me that nothing could be more undemocratic than to submit Amendments to a democratic Bill which must run a grave risk of wrecking it. I understand the hon. and gallant Member to say that nurses can register or not, as they choose, and can in either case continue to practice their profession and wear, their uniform. That seems to me to be perfectly fair, and I think that it would be wiser for Members who wish to help the nurses to accept the Bill, instead of bringing forward Amendments which may be multiplied to any extent and must result in losing the whole Bill.

Major NALL: I rise to support the Amendment. I am extremely sorry that the hon. Member turned down the offer of the Minister of Health. I hold no particular brief for any body, but I support this Amendment because I feel that the Bill as it stands is absolutely undemocratic. I am extremely sorry the authors of the Bill have refused to drop this Bill, and bring in a measure based on careful consideration of all the different claims. I must press all the Amendments that stand in my name, in order that we may to some extent modify the Bill, and remedy some of the defects which some of us feel strongly exist at present. I entirely associate myself with the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend about the feeling in Manchester and the Lancashire district. That feeling is very intense. Of all the letters I have had from that district, I think only one is in favour of the Bill as it stands; all the others oppose it. Only a few months ago in one of the military hospitals I talked to a good many of the nurses there about this question, and I found very little favour with the position taken up by the Central Committee. During several months in the Manchester Hospital I must say that practically the whole opinion expressed to me by nurses in that institution was in favour of the College. Although I hold no brief for the College, I do feel that we ought to pay some attention to feelings so strongly expressed, and we ought to alter this Bill to meet what, at any rate in the Lancashire district, is the overwhelming body of opinion amongst the nursing profession.

Mr. HAILWOOD: I wish to support the Amendment and I do so, not that I wish to oppose the principle of the Bill, but rather to make the Bill conform to the title. According to the title of the Bill one was given to understand that it was a Nurses' Registration Bill. Under Clause
4, three persons are to be appointed by the Privy Council, four are to be registered medical practitioners, two to be appointed by the Local Government Board for England, one for Ireland, and so on; three registered medical practitioners are to be appointed by the British Medical Association, one registered medical practitioner is to be appointed by the Medico-Psychological Association, and then one by the medical superintendents of fever hospitals; and four persons are to be appointed by the nurse-training schools. In this way we have persons appointed from different associations who are not nurses at all. We do want State registration of nurses, but if we are to have State registration of nurses it should be for nurses by nurses. That is the reason why our Amendment increases the number of nurses to be elected by nurses themselves to thirty-seven, and surely in these democratic days it seems preposterous that the outside medical associations should be brought in to control the way in which nurses should be registered. I do not know whether the medical profession would be prepared to accept nurses on their council to say what shall constitute a medical man, and what qualifications he should possess before he should be registered. I do hold that it would be perfectly ridiculous to expect nurses to control the medical profession, and I strongly object to "the medical men being brought into this Bill in order to control the nurses. I am quite confident that the nurses understand their profession better than the doctors do, and I contend that the nurses should be given full power in order to frame their council, their registration, and their regulations as they think fit. That is the reason why I support the Amendment.

Mr. G. THORNE: I rise only to appeal to the Government. We have all heard the statement made by the Minister of Health, who has indicated that he proposes to bring in a Bill. The promoter of the Bill, exercising his undoubted right, has refused to withdraw this Bill. Consequently the matter is going on for discussion, and a Motion is now before the House by way of Amendment. Surely the House is entitled to some advice from the Government as between the two sides in regard to this Amendment. I should like, under these circumstances, to hear what the Government have to say in regard to the Amendment before us.

Mr. SUGDEN: In supporting the Amendment I am particularly desirous of associating myself with the thought of compromise. I feel that whilst one section of the great nursing fraternity may have had, at some time, some power, and may have dominated the policy of the council of that very great profession, I do say that in the second suggestion we have put before us something may be done to equalise what has been an overbearing consideration. Therefore I support the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I suggest if the Mover of the Bill will further consider that addition, it may be possible to arrive at some agreement. I feel that after what the Government have proffered, to undertake to introduce a Bill, it will not be possible in this present Session to carry this forward, and this great profession desires immediate consideration and action. If this Bill is further amended, it may be possible for the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and those with whom he is associated, to accept the further suggestion.

Major Earl WINTERTON: I think it is desirable to have a reply on the point put by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. I do not know whether the position was brought out very clearly in the speech of the Minister for Health, but there has been negotiations going on with regard to this measure. This Amendment has been pressed upon the Minister, but it has been impossible to arrive at an agreement while the two present Bills, this one before us and one in another place, are in existence. For this reason the right hon. Gentleman proposes to introduce a Bill of his own, which I can assure the hon. Member for Wolverhampton has been pressed upon him by a very large consensus of opinion which is not biassed in favour of one proposal or the other. It is hardly fair to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Health to expect him —for he is very busy at this time—to come down here and reply on a discussion which is bound to be a futile one, because this Bill can never be passed.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. LYLE: I want to say only a few words on this particular Amendment, because it is not an official Amendment by the College of Nurses. I am here to-day representing the college, and I must say I am very sorry to hear that there is no chance
of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Pancras. adopting the suggestion which has been put out by the President of the Local Government Board—that both the Bills referred to should be withdrawn, and the Government should inquire into the whole question and get evidence from all sides, as is really the fair and right thing to do. I can speak for the College of Nurses on this matter. We would have welcomed that course being adopted. We quite realise the two points of view, and the reasonableness of the suggestion put forward by the Health Minister. This was that the Government, no doubt after impartial inquiry, should bring in a Bill of their own. Since that course has not been possible, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras decided to go forward, after looking at the Amendment which has been moved by hon. Members from the Manchester district, I think that anybody glancing at the Clause fairly will see that the constitution of the council, as suggested in the Amendment, is entirely preferable to the constitution of the council as drafted in the Bill. Turn to Clause 4. You find that as at present drafted there are three persons to be appointed by the Privy Council. Under the Amendment there is only one person to be so appointed—perhaps enough under the circumstances. However that may be, there is under paragraph (b)
Four registered medical practitioners, two to be appointed by the Local Government Board for England, one for England, one for Wales, one by the Local Government Board for Scotland, and one by the Local Government Board for Ireland;
As against these four registered medical practitioners, in the Amendment we propose one person by the British Medical Association. I submit that any council, which is going to look after the interests of the nurses, and govern the nursing profession, that one person, one medical man, is quite sufficient. I do not really think the nurses want to be or should be burdened with four registered medical practitioners. If you read on, you will see in the Amendment there are two persons by the College of Nursing, one by the Royal British Nurses' Association, and thirty-seven nurses by election on the part of all nurses duly registered, etc. You have got thirty-seven nurses by direct election, two more by the College of Nursing, and one by the Royal British Nurses' Association. That is forty nurses in all. I am rather surprised at people who have been telling us day in and day out that their policy is
one for nurses, and nobody else, trying to make out that they are the democratic people, and nobody else—that those are the people who object to the council election on the democratic principle suggested in the Amendment.
It seems to me that nothing better for the nurses themselves could possibly be conceived than a council wherein thirty-seven of them are elected directly instead of as in the Bill, where only eighteen nurses arc elected direct. That is one point to which I should like to direct the attention of the House.
There is another point which I also would like to dwell upon. That is, in Clause 3, Sub-section (1), paragraph (g), you will note that these very democratic bodies have provided
that of the eight elected by the nurses registered in England two at least shall be past or present matrons of nurse training schools attached to hospitals approved by the Council, one of whom shall be registered in the General Register as ' also trained in fever nursing.' 
It is provided that in the case of Ireland one at least shall be a matron. So that you have this society insisting that a considerable proportion of those elected by the nurses are to be matrons. That strike's me as very odd, because during the last three or four weeks I have had a good deal of correspondence to meet, and the basis of it all, and of many of the articles which have appeared in a paper which is not very widely read but which deals with nursing from a certain point of view, it is consistently advocated that nurses are cast aside in this matter. The whole object of the articles in the newspapers run by the Central Committee is to make out that the matron is a vixen or a tyrant who drives nurses, and who is everything that is bad, in fact, that the matron is a person whom you might almost frighten your children with by mentioning her name.
It has been said that we who advocate the College of Nursing are trying still more to get the nurses under the thumb of the matrons, but we take an entirely different view. We have been accused of actually disfranchising nurses because we put in the word "person" instead of "nurse." We suggested that nurses should be allowed to elect persons and not necessarily nurses, and for that reason we were told that we are disfranchising the nurse, That statement was made with the object of throwing dust into the eyes of people who do not attempt, and would not be
bothered about studying this Bill. It has been a campaign throughout of insinuation and slander, and personally I am very sorry that the course has not been adopted of accepting the compromise suggested by the President of the Local Government Board. Our view is not at all that matrons are undesirable people.
Some of us who have worked in hospitals have the greatest admiration for the matrons, and we think they represent some of the finest type engaged in the noblest profession in the world. I do not wish to bar the matrons. On the contrary, we think the nurses appreciate them and look to them in time of trouble, and a matron has often been more than a mother to many a girl who has come to the hospital. We do not share those views about matrons. We think probably matrons would be elected, but I strongly object to providing that a certain proportion of those representing nurses should be definitely matrons. I think that in these days that is a most extraordinary position to take up, and it is more particularly extraordinary when you read the quarter from which it comes. However that may be, I cannot help thinking that anybody who has studied the two Clauses, the one as at present drawn in the Central Committee's Bill and the other, although this is not an official Amendment by the College of Nursing, I think anybody who reads this eminently democratic Amendment will agree that of the two it is in finitely to be preferred to the Bill as it stands at present. Therefore, I think the House will agree that the Amendment is one for which they ought to vote solid.

Dr. MURRAY: I had no intention of speaking upon this Amendment, but I rise to express my regret that the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill has not accepted the offer of the Government. I should be inclined to vote in favour of the Amendment simply on the ground that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not accepted the very reasonable offer made on the part of the Government and on the part of those supporting the College of Nursing. I am not going to rush in to decide between the two parties to this dispute. Sometimes we show our valour by going into the Lobby when the protagonists on both sides are about, and my thoughts on those occasions turn to poetry—
How happy could I be with either,
Were t'other dear charmer away.
That is the attitude that I take up with regard to these two Bills. Some hon. Members, however, might be inclined to say,
A plague on both your houses.
I think it is germane to this Amendment, because it goes to the essence of the Bill, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should still consider the offer of the Government. There are two or three ways of dealing with this matter. One is for one side or the other to succeed, but that would not bring peace because the other would feel an aggrieved party. We might try peace by negotiation. We might send both parties into a room for a conference, lock the door, and tell them that they must come to an agreement. I do not know that you would find much when you opened the door. The history of the Bill has shown us that the protagonists will not come to an agreement by negotiation. There is only one reasonable way out of the difficulty, and that is for both sides to agree to allow the Government to bring in a Bill dealing with the whole problem. In that way you would not have one aggrieved party as against the other. Possibly in time the differences that have arisen between these two bodies of nurses would gradually fade away. It would certainly be a very great pity that by the victory of one side or the other the nursing profession should be rent in twain. We are merely ploughing the sands, one of the most unremunerative forms of occupation that I know, and I hope that by Five o'clock the sponsors of this Bill will agree to the Government taking the matter in hand and trying to settle their differences in the interests of the nursing profession and the health of the country. One hon. Member asked, Why should doctors control the nurses? They do not want to in this respect. They only want to control them in connection with their patients. That is all the control they wish to have. But in the matter of the administrative part of the profession I do not think they want to control the nurses. They prefer that that profession should be conducted on democratic lines.

Mr. HAILWOOD: What I said was, -that the promoters of the Bill are trying to bring in doctor's control.

Dr. MURRAY: I think it will be admitted that the doctors who, after all, direct the operations of the nurses, should
have some say as to the qualifications that are necessary for their registration. That is a reasonable demand.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to move,
That the Debate be now adjourned.
I wish the hon. Member in charge of the Bill would agree to that. I profoundly regret the position in which we find ourselves to-day. We are discussing a Bill to-day which everybody knows is bound to die in the course of the next few weeks. I think the remarks of the last speaker really were arguments in support of a Motion such as I am making. We do not want to continue what is, after all, a futile discussion. There is a fight going on between the Central Committee, on the one side, and the College of Nurses, on the other, as to the registration of nurses. But to go on under these circumstances with this Bill is simply to court disaster. I make this Motion in order that we may hear further from the hon. Member in charge, in general terms, what he proposes to do with regard to the Bill under existing conditions. I am afraid that, through no fault of his, it is going to be wrecked in consequence of the opposition to it from another section. The Amendment now before us is not going to be the end of the matter There are two Bills dealing with this subject. I regret that the hon. Member has not taken the offer of the Government and accepted its undertaking to introduce this Session a Bill to effect the registration of nurses.

Major MOLSON: I beg to second the Motion.
I hope the Mover of this Bill will withdraw the measure, and that the parties concerned will agree to leave their interests in the hands of the Government. On the last occasion this measure was under Debate I supported it very strongly because I recognised the desirability of having a general registration of nurses. I am extremely sorry to find there are so many party differences on this question. I was in the Committee Room when the deputation came, and I was much alarmed to notice the existence of these party interests. I do not like seeing one party up against another in this way. I am not favouring one party more than the other. I do not think there is much to choose between them, but as there is so much feeling in the country I heartily advise the Mover of this Bill to withdraw it and let
the Government bring in an impartial measure which will benefit the nurses throughout the Kingdom.

Major BARNETT: I have sat with patience during the last hour listening to criticisms of myself for not having accepted an offer which has been made by the Minister of Health. I listened very carefully to that offer, and it simply amounted to a pledge that the Government would look into this matter and deal with it at some future time, not this Session. [Hon. Members: "No."] I do not want to throw the slightest doubt upon their good intentions, but we have had in this House several examples of Government intentions that have not been carried out. I remember a most famous preamble to a Bill dealing with another place and an important constitutional problem, which was regarded as an obligation of honour by the Government of the day which should be carried out, but that obligation of honour was never carried out. Although my hon. and gallant Friend opposite appeals to me to withdraw the Bill and to the Government to give some pledge that they will take up the question, nothing in the way of a real pledge has been given. This being one of the two last Fridays after Whitsuntide for Private Members' business, I felt fully entitled to go on in order to see if we can get the Report stage of the Bill. If we can get the Report stage of the Bill before five o'clock, it would do no harm to the College of Nursing, Limited, or its Manchester advocates. In another place the College of Nursing, Limited, sits entrenched. [Hon. Members: "No."] I know something of what I am saying. If this Bill passes line for line as I want it, it would go to another place and the interests of the College of Nursing, Limited, would be very well looked after there. I suggest that as we have a short time allowed by the Rules of the House, and this is one of the Friday afternoons given to Private Members' business, we should go on and try to get the Report stage. If there had been any real desire on the part of the advocates of State registration, who in this House have given lip service to the principle, they would have ceased to take the first opportunity of talking out a Bill which is the only Bill that has the slightest chance of becoming law. The other Bill brought in in another place, which has passed its Second Reading, would never come here at all. If it did, it would be laughed out. A private
Bill, promoted by a limited company, which is to form the basis of the State registration of nurses, would be laughed out here.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: May I remind my hon. and gallant Friend that it is not a limited company. The word "Limited" has been dropped.

Major BARNETT: It has not been dropped yet. It is the College of Nursing, Limited. The Bill which my hon. and gallant Friend says has passed has only obtained a Second Reading in one House. I agree that it is undesirable to continue a futile discussion. I only wish to make it quite clear that if this Bill, which the great body of nurses passionately desire, is not going through this House, it is because there is an organised opposition in the interest of another body of nurses. I appeal to hon. Members who have moved these Amendments—which they do not call wrecking Amendments, but which fulfil that purpose—not to oppose the Motion to report Progress.

Colonel GREIG: I am a keen supporter of the Bill, and I came here in order to support it, but having listened carefully to what has been said and especially in view of the fact that the Minister for Health has given a definite pledge that a Bill shall be introduced—

An HON. MEMBER: When?

Colonel GREIG: The hon. Member who is supporting the present Bill can very easily translate that pledge into actual fact by inducing his supporters to meet and agree with the supporters of the other Bill and arrange terms and have what would practically then be an agreed public Bill brought in on the responsibility of the Government which would then meet with even more support than any private Member's Bill could meet with. I earnestly suggest that the hon. Member should withdraw the Bill. Even if the other Bill is entrenched in the House of Lords and never conies down to this House there is not the least doubt that it would have the smallest chance of success if he takes that course. I therefore earnestly, as a supporter of the Bill, and in the interests of all parties, in order to put an end to this intensive struggle, which does no good to the nursing profession, and is certainly not calculated Jo do good to the public outside, ask the hon. Member to adopt the course that
has been suggested so that an early Government Bill can be introduced which will be satisfactory to all parties and to this House, which, after all, is the main body to be consulted. It is not the hon. Member's Bill nor the Bill of hon. Members below the Gangway which will eventually pass this House. It will be Parliament's Bill.

Mr. G. THORNE: I intervened a little while ago when the Amendment was before the House, asking the Government to exercise their discretion and give their assistance. They did not give it. Now the situation is the adjournment of the Debate. The point of the adjournment was that the hon. Member should withdraw his Bill, in view of the Government pledge, but he has indicated that he considers the Government has given no pledge. I distinctly understood the Government gave a pledge, and that was the whole point, as I understood it, of the right hon. Gentleman urging the hon. Member to withdraw the Bill. If the Government has given no pledge the position of the hon. Member is certainly a very difficult one. I ask the hon. Gentleman representing the Government to say whether I am right or not that the Government has distinctly promised to bring in a Bill, and that that is the justification for withdrawing this Bill?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL (Treasurer of the Household): I will give the hon. Gentleman an answer, though I should have thought it was sufficiently obvious. The Minister of Health gave a pledge; he said the Government was going to take up this question, and it believed that step would meet the wishes of the great majority of the House and also of the people interested in this most important question throughout the country. That being so, the Government did not intend to take any further part in this discussion, either by vote or by speech, and I cannot help feeling it would be better if the Motion was accepted and the further consideration of the Bill adjourned.

Mr. LYLE: I should like to support the Motion to report Progress. The more we talk about this matter in the House as to the differences there are, the more difficult it will be to come to agreement when the Minister of Health asks us to come together for the Government Bill. I repu-
diate the suggestion made by the hon. Member (Major Barnett) that we wish to betray any nurses. We are just as keen and anxious for State registration as the promoters of this Bill. We also have a duty to perform to the nurses who trust us. We are pledged to support them, and the hon. and gallant Member has only himself to blame if he finds himself in this position. We supported the Second Reading and affirmed our principles in favour of State registration, but we said that our further support would entirely depend as to how he met our reasonable objections. We have not been met, and he has only himself to blame. I am not in. the least afraid that our action will be resented by the majority of nurses. I am sure the majority of nurses will be pleased that their case, which is a noble case, should be taken from the bitter arena of recrimination and put into the hands of a neutral body who will see fair play. My hon. Friend tells us of the dreadful things that may happen to us when we get outside, but perhaps he will thank us for saving him from the dreadful things that might happen to him if the Third Reading had been obtained to-day.

Major ENTW1STLE rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Is there any use in continuing the discussion?

Debate to be resumed upon Friday next.

Orders of the Day — CORN PRODUCTION ACTS (REPEAL) BILL.

Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question (4th June),

"That the Bill be now read a second time."

Question again proposed.

Mr. G. THORNE: I think the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) might give us some explanation of this Bill, and tell us the reason for the urgency of its being taken now at this late hour on Friday.

Major BARNETT: I should also like the hon. Baronet to give us some explanation.

Sir F. BANBURY: This is a resumption of the adjourned Debate which took place "some time ago. I gave an explanation of the Bill then.

Dr. MURRAY: It is desirable that the right hon. Baronet should give an explanation of the terms of the Bill.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and -at the end of the Question to add the words
upon this day six months.
I understand the right hon. Baronet gave a summary of this Bill on the previous occasion. That does not make it a better Bill. I ask the House to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. We cannot at this late hour on Friday reopen the whole question of agricultural policy in this country in regard to the growing of corn. There are a great many difficult questions involved in our future cereal policy in this country.
If he goes to a Division now I hope hon. Members will vote against the Second Reading.

Colonel GREIG: I beg to second the Amendment.
This is a most important Bill, because it reverses entirely the whole of the Government policy enunciated a year or two ago.

Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members not being present,

The House was Adjourned at Twenty-two minutes before Five o'clock till Monday next.